Communities at The Nexus of Entrepreneurship and Societal Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Literature Review

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
ournal of Business enturing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusvent
Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal

impact: A cross-disciplinary literature review☆
Sophie Bacq a, *, 1, Christina Hertel b, 1, G.T. Lumpkin c
a
Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 130 E 10th Street odge all 31 ,
Bloomington, I 0 , United States of merica
b
École olytechni ue édérale de ausanne, ollege of Management and echnology, oute antonale, 101 St Sulpice, S it erland
c
om ove Division of Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, rice ollege of Business, University of lahoma, 1003 sp venue – Suite
300 , orman, K 301 , United States of merica
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Key ords Although there is wide recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship for generating societal
Community impact, entrepreneurial activities alone rarely achieve a positive impact without the engagement
Entrepreneurship of communities. To date, however, entrepreneurship researchers have tended to overlook the
Societal impact
importance of community for creating societal impact through entrepreneurship, and lack a
Community-based enterprise
comprehensive understanding of the nature and roles of communities. To address this, we
Community dynamics
Community emergence conduct a systematic review of the literature published in 51 journals across the Management and
Community morphing Entrepreneurship, Economic Development/Community Development, Economic Geography and
Entrepreneurial process Regional Science, Energy, and Public Administration disciplines that makes three contributions.
Typology First, it identifies a new typology of community and proposes a comprehensive framework of roles
through which societal impact is created by entrepreneurship for, in, ith, ena led y, and driven
y communities. Second, it demonstrates that the key to understanding how community relates to
societal impact creation is to jointly account for both its type(s) and role(s). By linking community
types and roles, the findings also suggest a theoretical contribution based on the relationship
between the degree of formalization of a community type, and the degree of agency that a
community role enacts. Third, the review underscores that communities are not just static settings
but can also be dynamic actors in efforts to use entrepreneurship to create societal impact. Our
cross-disciplinary review highlights trends and gaps in the extant literature and provides re-
searchers with an evidence-based research agenda to guide future inquiry on this vital topic.
☆
We thank our Editor and three anonymous Reviewers for their developmental feedback. Previous versions of this manuscript also benefited
from fruitful comments from Lien De Cuyper, Domenico Dentoni, Caroline Flammer, Abhisekh Ghosh Moulick, Ralph Hamann, Camille Meyer, Larry
Plummer, Devin Stein, as well as from attendees at research seminars at IESEG Management & Society Department, Technische Universität
München, Syracuse University, Erasmus University, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; at the Swiss PDW on Neutral Grounds;
and the Academy of Management 2021 Annual Meeting. We also appreciate the feedback provided following keynote addresses at the International
Social Innovation Research Conference 2021 at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, the European University Network on Entrepreneurship 2021 at
the University of Groningen, and the 2022 ACERE Conference at Queensland University of Technology. The authors are thankful to the Management
& Entrepreneurship Department at Indiana University Kelley School of Business for their warm welcome and support during the early developments
of this work. All errors remain ours.
* Corresponding author.
E mail addresses bacqs@iu.edu (S. Bacq), christina.hertel@ep .ch (C. Hertel), lumpkin@ou.edu (G.T. Lumpkin).
1
The first two authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically.
https://doi.org/10.101 /j.jbusvent.2022.10 2 1
Received une 2020; Received in revised form May 2022; Accepted 1 May 2022
S Bac et al
“ he community is the garden of entrepreneurship o entrepreneurial venture can o er in isolation ”

Hindle (2010)
0. Executive summary
In he ealth of ations, Adam Smith asserted that the relationship between business and society depends on local communities.
Today, many entrepreneurship researchers still acknowledge the important roles communities play in entrepreneurship, especially in
endeavors to create societal impact. Most societal challenges, such as poverty, climate change, and inequality, manifest in commu-
nities, and solutions need to be developed for, in, with, and by the members of communities. Consequently, many development
agendas and programs that rely on entrepreneurship to improve conditions place special emphasis on communities and the roles they
can play. Although the academic literature increasingly calls for research that treats communities as more than just mere beneficiaries
of entrepreneurial action, we lack a clear understanding of the community construct and of the various roles that communities assume
in entrepreneurial initiatives aiming to create societal impact.
In this work, we conduct a systematic review of the literature to address this gap. Since research on this interdisciplinary phe-
nomenon is disjointed and spans well beyond the fields of Management and Entrepreneurship, we search in 51 journals across the
Management and Entrepreneurship, Economic Development/Community Development, Economic Geography and Regional Science,
Energy, and Public Administration disciplines. Building on the analysis of 22 articles across disciplines, we identify trends and
omissions, and provide recommendations for how knowledge can be imported from, and exported to, other disciplines. Our
comprehensive review of the literature allows us to propose an overarching definition of community as an aggregation of individuals ho
share place, identity, fate, interest, and or practice. This definition summarizes the five primary types of community—community of
place, identity, fate, interest, and practice—that we combine and describe in a novel typology of community.
Our review also reveals a continuum of community roles, ranging from passive beneficiaries to highly active entrepreneurial social
change agents. We provide evidence from extant research to illustrate how societal impact can be created through entrepreneurship
for, in, ith, ena led y, and driven y communities. Put differently, when communities play the role of beneficiary or context, en-
trepreneurs are the key agents of action; communities become co-agents of change in the supporter and partner role; in the most
agentic roles, communities create opportunities for others, or are the entrepreneurs themselves. While systematically carving out the
various ways in which community involvement can enable or facilitate societal impact creation through entrepreneurial action, the
review also evinces potential challenges and potential downsides.
Our analysis reveals that, to gain a deeper understanding of how community relates to societal impact creation, it is crucial to
account jointly for both its type(s) and role(s). Moreover, an analysis mapping community types onto community roles reveals that, in
general, the more formalized a community type is—that is, the extent to which its members are organized and share agreed upon
terms—the more active the role it plays. We find evidence that less formalized and more broadly defined communities of place, identity
and/or fate tend to assume more passive roles in relation to entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact creation (i.e., beneficiary,
context, or supporter). In these cases, communities are the recipients of the created benefits and affect or support the entrepreneurial
activity, but do not take on an agentic or leading role in the process. Conversely, more formalized communities of interest and practice
are more likely to act as official partners of entrepreneurial ventures, or themselves become entrepreneurial in efforts to generate
societal impact. Instead of implying a deterministic relationship between community type and the role it can assume, however, the
analysis also reveals two kinds of community dynamics that enable communities to assume more agentic roles. First, existing com-
munities can change with regard to their defining characteristics by engaging in entrepreneurship, what we call, community morphing.
Second, existing communities can spawn new (sub-)communities which tend to be more formalized, what we call, community
emergence.
The typology of community and our framework of community roles are intended to help researchers and practitioners develop a
common language and identify meaningful questions and approaches to bring communities to the fore in entrepreneurship and societal
impact creation research. On the one hand, findings hold numerous implications for advancing research on the entrepreneurial
process, social entrepreneurship, community-based enterprises, and ethnic and minority entrepreneurship. On the other hand, a more
granular understanding of different types of communities and how they emerge, change, and interact, provides guidance for practi-
tioners and policymakers on how to factor in and engage communities to unleash the power of entrepreneurship to create societal
impact.
1. Introduction
Long seen as a key engine of economic development (e.g., Sutter et al., 201 ; Wearing et al., 2020), entrepreneurship has now
become a powerful source of innovative solutions to society s most intractable challenges, such as systemic poverty, social injustice,
and climate change (Doherty et al., 201 ; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010). To effectively address such challenges, however,
research suggests that entrepreneurship cannot act in isolation: communities support societal impact creation through entrepre-
neurship by in uencing and sometimes shaping the entrepreneurial process (Corner and Ho, 2010; Shepherd and Patzelt, 201 ),
providing necessary resources (Hertel et al., 2021; Williams and Shepherd, 201 a), and making unique contributions to the devel-
opment of effective solutions (Lumpkin and Bacq, 201 ; Tello-Rozas et al., 2015). Further, because it is primarily within communities
that societal issues and societal solutions manifest, positive societal impact relies on deep understandings of the community and how
S Bac et al
its members are experiencing a given issue (Dacin et al., 2011; Rao and Greve, 201 ). Therefore, the relationship between communities
and entrepreneurship is one we need to more thoroughly comprehend to fully grasp the societal in uence of entrepreneurship, leading
some to identify community as “the next true frontier for entrepreneurship researchers” (Lyons et al., 2012).
et, despite the enduring and distinctive nature of community as a bridging force between business dynamics and social helping
efforts, and multiple calls to pay more attention to the different roles communities serve in entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact
creation (Branzei et al., 201 ; Daskalaki et al., 2015; Lumpkin and Bacq, 201 ; Shepherd, 2015), many studies still neglect community
as a major actor and key concept for comprehending societal impact creation and entrepreneurship. First, much of the current research
does not explicate what the term community’ refers to, which leads to misunderstandings and potentially erroneous transfers of
knowledge from one context to another (Kibler and Muñoz, 2020). Second, we lack a specific and comprehensive conception of the
different roles communities play and, as a result, communities are often downplayed to be merely the beneficiaries of (e.g., McMullen
and Bergman, 201 ), or a context for (e.g., osefy et al., 201 ), entrepreneurship targeted at societal impact creation. Third, since
research at this intersection holds relevance for multiple disciplines beyond the management and entrepreneurship literature, scholars
from other fields have produced important insights and large bodies of knowledge which tend to be left out of conversations in
entrepreneurship journals. As a result, the meaning, function, and significance of community is treated inconsistently, challenging the
development of cumulative knowledge. Taken together, this suggests that the community concept has uncertain theoretical un-
derpinnings, leading to incomplete assessments and little understanding of the crucial role communities play in entrepreneurial ini-
tiatives aimed at creating societal impact. Research on the nexus of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact tends to remain
superficial, and in-depth empirical studies exploring the nuances of communities and their effects on entrepreneurial societal impact
are still rare.
Therefore, there is strong urgency to resolve ambiguities surrounding the definition and applications of community, and to
consolidate insights from across disciplinary boundaries in ways that establish construct clarity and provide a frame for guiding
research at the nexus of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact (Littlewood, 201 ; Lumpkin et al., 201 ; Post et al., 2020).
To do so, we conduct a cross-disciplinary systematic review of the literature on the topic, drawing on insights from 22 articles
published in journals spanning the disciplines of Management and Entrepreneurship, Economic Development/Community Develop-
ment, Economic Geography and Regional Science, Energy, and Public Administration.
Based on an extensive analysis of the various uses of the term community’ across disciplines, we derive a new typology consisting
of five primary community types—communities of place, identity, fate, interest, and practice—which we explain and illustrate. We
propose an overarching definition of community as an aggregation of individuals ho share place, identity, fate, interest, and or practice.
We also analyze the different functions of communities at the intersection of entrepreneurship and societal impact creation to inform
the development of a novel, comprehensive framework of community roles on a continuum from passive beneficiaries to highly active
entrepreneurial agents. More specifically, we demonstrate that societal impact is created by entrepreneurship for, in, ith, ena led y,
and driven y communities. The mapping of community types on community roles reveals a relationship between the degree of for-
mality of the community type and the degree of agency that a community role represents. However, because the relationship between
community types and the roles they can assume is not merely deterministic, we also highlight the dynamic nature of communities: far
from being just static settings, communities have the capacity to actively embrace more agentic roles in developing entrepreneurial
solutions through morphing, that is, transforming their role, and through the emergence of new (sub-)communities.
Our cross-disciplinary review findings are of utmost theoretical and practical significance. First, by consolidating currently
disparate depictions and studies of communities as they relate to entrepreneurship for societal impact into a new typology of com-
munities and framework of roles, we provide a useful approach to studying community across disciplines and settings. Second, our
analysis indicates that accounting for oth community type(s) and community role(s) is the key to understanding how community
relates to societal impact creation. Third, by linking community types and roles, we reveal the dynamic nature of communities and
their potential to change or create novel communities to assume more agentic roles and make deeper commitments to achieve greater
societal impact. These findings have important implications for future research on the entrepreneurial process (e.g., Lumpkin and Dess,
2001; Shepherd and Patzelt, 201 ), social entrepreneurship (e.g., Bacq and anssen, 2011; Branzei et al., 201 ; Lumpkin and Bacq,
201 ), community-based enterprise (CBE) (e.g., Hertel et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2020), ethnic and minority entrepreneurship (e.g.,
Achidi Ndofor and Priem, 2011; Dana and Light, 2011), and societal impact creation and measurement (Hertel et al., 2022; Rawhouser
et al., 201 ). Fourth, by reviewing the extant literature exhaustively and highlighting trends and omissions, we provide researchers
with a more salient and precise basis upon which to direct future investigations of this vital topic.
2. Defining and linking our key concepts
To delineate the boundaries of our systematic review, we start by carefully defining its key concepts—entrepreneurship, societal
impact, and community—and explaining how they relate to one another. We define entrepreneurship as the process and activities
through which novel economic activities and organizations come into existence (Davidsson, 2015; McMullen and Dimov, 201 ).
Entrepreneurship has long been associated with societal benefits, expressed for the most part in terms of job creation and economic
growth (Baumol, 1 ; ahra and Wright, 201 ). Such benefits have justified the increasing use of entrepreneurship as a key engine of
economic development (e.g., Muñoz et al., 2015; Sutter et al., 201 ; Wearing et al., 2020). Along with the social and environmental
improvements that are by-products of entrepreneurship, a growing number of organizations, called social enterprises, are being
created worldwide with the primary purpose of tackling societal challenges—for instance, addressing poverty, social injustice, and
climate change (Bacq and anssen, 2011; Doherty et al., 201 ; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010).
The emergence of entrepreneurship as a major force for addressing social and environmental challenges (Gibbs, 200 ; Hall et al.,
S Bac et al
2010; Markman et al., 201 ), along with growing agreement on the role of business as a central driver of not only private economic
value creation but also social and/or environmental value creation (Bacq and Aguilera, 2022; Kaplan, 2020; Stephan et al., 201 ), has
led to a proliferation of concepts representing the non-financial outcomes of entrepreneurial activity including social value, social
returns, and social performance (for a recent review see Rawhouser et al., 201 ). In this review, we build on extant research and define
societal impact as “significant or lasting changes in people s lives, brought about by a given action or series of actions (Roche, 1 , p.
21)” (Molecke and Pinkse, 2020, p. ).
To enhance understanding of entrepreneurship aimed at generating societal impact, Lumpkin et al. (201 ) emphasized the
importance of studying communities, where many societal change initiatives take place. Communities as research objects are kindred
with and parallel to societies (Curtis, 2011; Foss and Klein, 200 ; Handy, 1 ); but, because they are considered less abstract, they are
suggestive of a more specific level of analysis. In particular, in this review, we employ communities as a meso-level unit of analysis. In
other words, communities sit somewhere between the enterprise level and the societal level. Across disciplines, the term community is
used broadly and means different things to different researchers. Given the breadth of the term community’ and the lack of a shared
understanding of its meaning, a key aim of this review is to perform an inductive analysis that reveals the defining features of com-
munity in the literatures reviewed, and to propose a definition based on that review.
3. Review methodology
3 1 Search strategy
To reduce biases and enhance the rigor of our analysis, we employed a systematic—that is, transparent and replicable—review
methodology (Tranfield et al., 200 ). Following other reviews that identified a sharp increase in articles on the topic of societal impact
published in management and entrepreneurship journals around 200 (Battilana and Lee, 201 ; edula et al., 2022), we focused our
search on work published in English that appeared in peer-reviewed journal publications between 01/01/200 and 12/ 1/2020.
While most systematic reviews in management and entrepreneurship journals focus primarily on specific journal lists such as the
inancial imes 50 or the British Academic ournal Guide from the Chartered Association of Business Schools to identify the journals to
include in a review (e.g., Matthews et al., 201 ; Sutter et al., 201 ), we believe doing so would have been insufficient to capture the
range of research germane to this study for two reasons: a) important insights pertaining to emerging research topics are often not
published in top-ranked journals ( ané et al., 201 ), and b) such an approach would turn a blind eye to the vast body of relevant
knowledge that exists outside of the management and entrepreneurship literature.
Therefore, we took the following steps to define the list of relevant journals for our review. First, we identified the academic
disciplines that most directly speak to our research objective, settling on Management and Entrepreneurship, Economic Development/
Community Development, Economic Geography and Regional Science, Energy, and Public Administration.2 Second, we asked six
leading scholars, chosen for their research expertise at the intersection of management, entrepreneurship, and the above-mentioned
disciplines, to recommend a list of relevant peer-reviewed journals that speak to our research objective. Third, we performed a broad
search in four relevant databases (i.e., Web of Science, EBSCO Business Source Complete, GreenFILE, and EconLit) to ensure we had
not missed journals that have published a body of scholarship with insights relevant to our study. We searched for carefully chosen
keywords—“(social OR environmental OR societal) AND (impact OR value OR change OR responsibility OR action OR performance)
AND entrepreneur* AND communit*”—in the title, abstract and/or keywords of articles. The keywords to capture the notion of so-
cietal impact were meant to be inclusive, and paralleled what other reviews of the field have used (e.g., Battilana and Lee, 201 ; edula
et al., 2022). The search term “entrepreneur*” was also chosen based on recent literature reviews (Sutter et al., 201 ). We then
triangulated the list of journals provided by our experts (step 2) with the list generated by the database search (step ). Following this
strategy, we identified a final list of 51 journals, including 22 in Management and Entrepreneurship, and 2 outside of the management
sciences (see Table A.1 in Appendix A).
Next, we searched for articles within the 51 journals using the same keyword search specifications as in the previous step (we
performed the search in the EBSCO Business Source Complete database, and cross-validated our findings by manually searching the
journals websites). This procedure produced a set of 2 5 articles. After downloading the 2 5 articles, the first two authors went
through them one-by-one to make inclusion and exclusion decisions, with the goal of striking a balance between being as open and
unbiased as possible with regard to scholars diverging understandings of community, while still ensuring the relevance of the included
articles. We only excluded articles that, although containing the search terms, did not address all three central topics covered by our
review. For instance, we excluded articles discussing the role of social networks for shareholder value creation. When one author
identified an article that fit the exclusion criteria, the two authors debated it until a consensus emerged about including or excluding it
2
We thank our Editor and anonymous Reviewers for their suggestions of broadening our search to be more inclusive of important insights from
multiple disciplines.
We acknowledge that, given the broad meaning of our three key constructs (entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact creation), the
non-inclusion of related and close keywords in our search—such as, sustainable and prosocial to capture societal impact, or enterprise and venture to
capture entrepreneurship—is a limitation to our search. Future research could establish how other, related keywords might nuance the takeaways
from this review.
Appendix A.2 provides additional information on our search strategy and the inclusion/exclusion criteria we mobilized to identify the relevant
set of articles forming the basis of our analysis.
S Bac et al
in the final set of articles. Later, in the process of analyzing individual articles, we added other articles we found during our search that
proved to be highly relevant for the review—a validated technique for systematic literature reviews (e.g., Grégoire et al., 201 ).
Overall, the search yielded a final list of 22 articles of interest. The online Appendix provides the list and key descriptors of all 22
articles included in this review, organized by discipline.
3 nalytical approach
To gain a shared understanding of what the term community’ means to scholars, and what roles communities assume at the
intersection of entrepreneurship and societal impact, we started our analysis with a round of open, inductive coding (Gioia et al., 201 )
focusing on the one hand, on community types (i.e., what defines and characterizes community ) and, on the other hand, on com-
munity roles (i.e., how does community interact with entrepreneurial efforts to create societal impact ). All authors then discussed and
revised these early insights while going through a subset of the articles together. Doing so, we reached consensus on five community
types (community of place, identity, fate, interest and practice) and six community roles (community as beneficiary, context, sup-
porter, partner, opportunity creator, and entrepreneur).5
An important early finding was that communities rarely fall in only one of the categories; the majority have multiple defining
characteristics (e.g., community of place and fate) and play more than one role (e.g., both beneficiary and supporter of a given
entrepreneurial initiative). Moreover, in multiple articles, more than one community was mentioned and described. In total, we coded
1 communities in the 22 articles. We coded all community characteristics that were e plicitly mentioned in the article and avoided
making assumptions (e.g., we used the code “identity” only if the identity characteristic was e plicitly mentioned in the text). Further,
we only attributed a code if its characteristic was defining the community, not just existing “coincidentally” in parts of it (e.g., we
attributed the code “fate” to a community only if the article focused on the shared fate of the community, not if the article just
mentioned that parts of the community were affected by an external factor beyond their control, such as a natural disaster). Another
important finding was that communities can evolve over time, both with regard to their defining characteristics and their roles. We
thus coded whether the community under analysis was e isting (i.e., already in place and not undergoing any change with regard to
their defining characteristics during the course of the study), morphing (i.e., changing in their defining characteristics during the course
of the study), or emerging (i.e., being created during the course of the study).
We then randomly divided the articles between the first two authors who independently re-read and further coded all 22 articles
in close collaboration, to discuss and resolve any divergences, and to make final adjustments to the coding scheme. The final,
inductively generated coding scheme that emerged from multiple iterative rounds of discussion among the author team spanned the
following codes: community types, roles, and dynamics, 11 different (partially overlapping) forms of entrepreneurial activity (i.e.,
community-based enterprise, community entrepreneurship, cooperatives, cross-sector partnerships, entrepreneurship (general),
environmental entrepreneurship, ethnic entrepreneurship, hybrid organizations, institutional entrepreneurship, social entrepre-
neurship, and sustainable entrepreneurship), the nature and role of the entrepreneurial activity (e.g., problem solving, changing
markets), and the type of societal impact generated (e.g., reduced inequality, regained economic strength, community empowerment).
It also comprised descriptive features including methodology (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, experimental, mixed, conceptual), theory
or literature used, industry, and geographical focus (i.e., continent, country, rural or urban focus). Finally, we analyzed how the
community construct is treated across disciplines. Overall, our iterative, inductive approach enabled us to perform the search and
analysis with both depth and breadth.
. indings
In this section, we begin with a general overview of our findings (Section .1) followed by deeper dives into the community ty-
pology that emerged from our analysis (Section .2), and the roles communities play in entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact
creation (Section . ).
1 vervie of the ndings
Our systematic review of the literature yielded a total of 22 articles across the five scholarly disciplines mentioned above. About
half of the articles included in our review come from the Management and Entrepreneurship literature (122) with the other half spread
across the four other disciplines: from Economic Development/Community Development (20. ), 5 from Economic Geography
and Regional Science (1 . ), 12 from Energy (5. ), and 2 from Public Administration and Policy (0. ). We also note an increase
in articles published each year, from two articles per year in 200 and 200 up to a maximum of 0 in 201 , illustrating growing
interest in and/or relevance of the topic.
The analysis reveals a strong emphasis on rural communities ( 2 articles = 0.5 ) versus 2 articles on urban communities
(10.1 ). In articles, the community is not specified as being either urban or rural (1 .5 ), and in 5 articles ( .0 ), the rural/
urban distinction does not appear to be relevant (e.g., the arguments apply across all geographies). Finally, articles specifically
compare rural to urban settings (1. ). Further, the topic of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact holds relevance across
5
We define community types and roles with greater precision based on our inductive analysis, in Section .2. of our findings.
S Bac et al
the world, as re ected in studies conducted across continents: 15 from Oceania ( . , from Australia, New ealand, Papua New
Guinea, and Samoa), 15 from South America ( . , from countries, e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Chile), 1 from Africa ( , from
countries, e.g., Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya), 2 from Asia (10.1 , from countries, e.g., Bangladesh, India, apan), from North
America (1 .2 , from 5 countries, mostly the U.S. and Canada but also Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico), and—the largest share— from
Europe ( 0. , from more than 20 countries, including 1 from the UK). In articles, the geographic location of the study was not
specified (1 .5 ). Finally, 15 studies used international samples, while only two examined online communities. In terms of meth-
odology, the largest share by far (1 articles) is qualitative ( 0. ); articles are conceptual (20. ), are quantitative (1 . ),
use experimental methods (1. ), and use mixed methods (1. ).
Our disciplinary coding allowed us to identify trends and omissions in certain disciplines. For instance, we observed that Devel-
opment scholars study the communities as entrepreneur role in relatively higher proportion compared to other disciplines. Moreover,
while the Management and Entrepreneurship disciplines provide interesting exemplars for studying non-place-based communities, the
literature outside our field tends to focus on place-based communities. While these insights help us make recommendations for how
knowledge can be imported from, and exported to, other disciplines (see Section .1), we found the same main patterns across the
bodies of literature we reviewed, meaning that the different community types and roles are both relatively equally represented across
the five disciplines. Thus, our findings hold relevance for all research fields and provide a basis for much-needed cross-disciplinary
transfers of knowledge and theories (Shaw et al., 201 ).
ne typology of community
Based on our systematic review and analysis, a new typology of community emerged that encompasses the different types of
communities researchers have studied at the crossroads of entrepreneurship and societal impact. Our analysis reveals five “pure”
community types: place, identity, fate, interest, and practice. Because these community types are typically not mutually exclusive but
overlapping, individuals shared bonds with a given collective of people tend to be defined by more than one of the five pure types. As
such, our analysis uncovers 1 hybrid combinations in which community types overlap. Fig. 1 illustrates these findings; totals are
based on the 1 communities coded in the 22 articles we reviewed.
First, community as a geographical locale is, by far, the most common understanding of the term community.’ While 2 2 com-
munities (2 2/ 1 = . of all communities) have a place component (pure type or in combination with other community types),
101 communities ( 2.0 ) are pure communities of place (i.e., not in combination with other community types). In line with Glynn
(200 ), we define community of place as an aggregation of individuals within a specific geographical territory, who are connected
mainly by a shared location. As Fig. 1 indicates, however, geographic elements are often combined with features pertaining to other
community types. Peredo and Chrisman (200 ), for instance, argue that the sharing of a geographical location is “generally accom-
panied by shared culture and/or ethnicity and potentially by other shared relational characteristic(s).” (p. 15) Others go a step further
to argue that shared place alone does not suffice as a defining characteristic for community (Subramony, 201 ), and note that a shared
location inevitably results in shared elements of identity, culture, and norms (Heinze et al., 201 ; Marquis and Battilana, 200 ).
However, these elements are not definitional prerequisites of communities of place.
Second, almost one quarter of the communities we analyzed ( / 1 = 2 .1 of all communities) are communities of identi
ty—aggregations of individuals who share common features in relation to shared culture (Mrabure, 201 ), traditions ( in et al., 201 ),
and religion ( avaid et al., 2020), as well as ethnic (Pinto and Blue, 201 ; Pret and Carter, 201 ) or indigenous (Spencer et al., 201 ;
Sun and Im, 2015) heritage. This shared identity can function as a resource and is a powerful trigger for individual and collective
action (Hertel et al., 201 ; Hjalager, 201 ). In most of the reviewed literature, communities of identity are also communities of place
(out of communities of identity, are also communities of place).
Third, we found multiple studies referring to communities of fate (also / 1 = 2 .1 of all communities), 5 of which are also
communities of place. These communities represent aggregations of individuals who are similarly affected by external factors for
reasons primarily beyond their control. Members of these communities may suffer from unequal treatment in the mainstream economy
and be at a disadvantage (e.g., people of color, women, and the disabled, see Kodzi, 2015), or be affected by more sudden and acute
crises such as natural disasters (e.g., earthquake, see Salvato et al., 2020; Williams and Shepherd, 201 b), or armed con ict (e.g.,
communities of refugees, see Harima and Freudenberg, 2020). Notably, communities of fate are not necessarily bound by a geographic
location. For instance, communities of people with disabilities (e.g., O Brien et al., 201 ) or communities of veterans (e.g., Lumpkin
and Bacq, 201 ) often form collectives that share fate without sharing place.
Fourth, the smallest share of articles ( 0/ 1 = 1 ) deals with communities of interest—aggregations of individuals who are tied
together by a specific focus or common concerns, such as minority-group rights or equal access to public goods. Most studies we
reviewed focus on activist or social movement communities that act together for a certain cause, such as promoting renewable en-
ergies (Dufays and Huybrechts, 201 ; Pacheco et al., 201 ; Sine and Lee, 200 ) or more sustainable production practices (Akemu et al.,
Intentional communities (e.g., Kanter, 1 2), while sometimes considered a separate form, are captured in the community of identity type.
Intentional communities include residential communities designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The
members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, religious, or spiritual vision and may follow an alternative lifestyle
which, most often, emerges from a shared identity.
Activist community refers to any type of community of people who organize with the general aim of bringing about political or social change on
a local or global level. A social movement community is a special form of activist community that supports the cause of a specific social movement.
S Bac et al
ig. 1. Community types and overlapping combinations.
201 ; Weber et al., 200 ; ork et al., 201 ). These communities tend to be relatively formalized and organized in their efforts to bring
about field-level social and environmental change ( ork et al., 201 ).
Finally, the last group of articles ( 2/ 1 = 25. 5 ) examines communities of practice, aggregations of individuals bound together
by shared expertise, craft or livelihood, and who learn how to improve their expertise and get better at their craft or vocation through
regular interactions (Barnes, 2001; Wenger and Snyder, 2000). Communities of producers (Ansari et al., 2012; Weber et al., 200 ) or
farmers (Dias et al., 201 ; Lähdesmäki et al., 201 ; Mac as ázquez and Alonso González, 2015; Smith et al., 201 ) at the Bottom of the
Pyramid (BOP), or isolated communities of producers in emerging markets (McDermott et al., 200 ), constitute examples of com-
munities of practice. Other examples of communities of practice found in the literature include groups of fishermen (Cantino et al.,
201 ; Quist and Nygren, 2015; Stoll et al., 2015; Uduji et al., 2020), gold miners (Saldarriaga-Isaza et al., 2015), and reindeer herders
(Dana and Light, 2011).
Taken together, our review of extant scholarship can be synthesized into a refined definition of community as: an aggregation of
individuals ho share place, identity, fate, interest, and or practice. Table 1 summarizes the definition of the five community types
identified in our review.
Finally, we found that across the community literatures, research primarily focuses on the following categories: communities of 1)
place, 2) place and identity, or ) place and fate ( 2. of all communities). Other than pure communities of place, we find far fewer
pure community forms; more common are combinations of two or three community types. We found only eight communities that share
four characteristics, and one that features all five characteristics. The natural intermingling of different community types, coupled with
the inattention to types by researchers who have tended not to specify community types or differentiate among them, has served to
limit research on the different ways that communities relate to entrepreneurship to create societal impact. It also serves to highlight a
key conclusion of our analysis: that identifying community types alone is insufficient for understanding how communities engage in
entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact creation. To gain a more holistic understanding, it is also critical to explicate the roles that
communities play, and how these roles may evolve over time. We turn to community roles next.
3 comprehensive frame or of community roles
While the literature alludes to various ways communities can affect entrepreneurship aimed at creating societal impact, so far,
researchers lack a comprehensive understanding of the different roles communities can assume. Our review reveals a continuum of
community roles, ranging from passive beneficiaries—the most common role—to highly active entrepreneurial social change agents.
In all cases, the societal impact in our analysis arises as an outcome of entrepreneurship. We abstract the different roles that community
plays into a comprehensive framework which, as shown in Fig. 2, differentiates between entrepreneurship and societal impact creation
for, in, ith, ena led y, and driven y communities. In each of the role configurations in the framework, the key actors vary:
S Bac et al
a le 1
Definitions of the different community types.
Community type Definition
Community Aggregation of individuals who share place, identity, fate, interest, and/or practice.
Community of place Aggregation of individuals within a specific geographical territory, who are connected mainly by a shared location.
Community of Aggregation of individuals who share common features in relation to shared culture, traditions, and religion, as well as ethnic or
identity indigenous heritage.
Community of fate Aggregation of individuals who are similarly affected by external factors for reasons primarily beyond their control.
Community of Aggregation of individuals who are tied together by a specific focus or common concerns.
interest
Community of Aggregation of individuals bound together by shared expertise, craft or livelihood.
practice
entrepreneurs are key agents of action when the communities play the role of beneficiaries or contexts; communities become co-agents
of change in the supporter and partner role; in the most agentic roles, communities are opportunity creators or the entrepreneurs
themselves (also refer to Table 1 for a summary). Next, we dig deeper into each of the roles to systematically consolidate existing
knowledge and identify trends and gaps in extant scholarship.
3 1 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation for communities— ommunities as ene ciaries
The largest share of the studies we analyzed treats communities as ene ciaries of entrepreneurship, that is, recipients of the value
created by entrepreneurial initiatives (20 / 1 = .1 ). Some benefits are social in nature, such as providing basic goods and
services (e.g., Slade Shantz et al., 201 ), reducing inequality (e.g., Hall et al., 2012; Peters et al., 201 ), alleviating poverty (e.g.,
Anderson and Obeng, 201 ; Tobias et al., 201 ), renewing or strengthening a positive identity (e.g., Berglund et al., 201 ; ohnstone
and Lionais, 200 ; McKeever et al., 2015), or providing post-disaster assistance (e.g., Dutta, 201 ; Williams and Shepherd, 201 a).
Other benefits are environmental, such as fighting climate change or mitigating environmental degradation (e.g., Gray et al., 201 ;
McFadgen, 201 ). Entrepreneurial actors endeavor to benefit the community in which they are located (e.g., Kannothra et al., 201 ;
McKeever et al., 2015), or externally, such as impoverished communities in another country (e.g., ain and Koch, 2020; enkataraman
et al., 201 ). Most authors focus on creating positive societal impact—in the sense of significant or lasting positive changes in people s
lives, brought about by a given action or series of actions. For other researchers, impact entails reducing negative effects on com-
munities (e.g., “do no harm”) (Ansari et al., 2012; Dana et al., 201 ; Hall et al., 2012; Howard-Grenville et al., 201 ; McMullen and
Warnick, 201 ).
There is also a distinction in the literature between benefits that are intentionally created for a community (e.g., Kimmel and Hull,
2012; Muñoz and Dimov, 2015; Tobias et al., 201 ), and unintended (e.g., Dinger et al., 2020; ahra and Wright, 201 ). Intentional
benefits are either direct—such as the provision of resources needed to identify and deploy solutions to alleviate community problems
(e.g., Ansari et al., 2012; Barinaga, 201 ; Berglund et al., 201 )—or indirect—fostering an entrepreneurial culture (e.g., Kannothra
et al., 201 ; McKeever et al., 2015), the “entrepreneurization of a community” (Marti et al., 201 , p. 11), or building capacity which
can lead to heightened resilience at a community level (e.g., Bakas, 201 ; Gray et al., 201 ; Hertel et al., 201 ; Linnenluecke and
McKnight, 201 ). Importantly, we observe a trend in expressing the intended outcomes of entrepreneurial policies and actions in terms
of community empowerment, capacity building, and resilience. This trend is based on research suggesting that a community s capacity
to engage in entrepreneurship is key to its ability to bounce back from shocks and stresses (Rao and Greve, 201 ), and to generate
sustainable community development outcomes (Markley et al., 2015). While the creation of these direct and indirect benefits happen
deliberately, unintended beneficial consequences also emerge as by-products of entrepreneurship, for example, through strengthening
the local economy (e.g., Dinger et al., 2020; ahra and Wright, 201 ), or enhancing the social capital of a given community by
consolidating its existing ties or creating new ties with other more resource-rich networks (Ansari et al., 2012).
The literature indicates that entrepreneurship aimed at benefiting communities is not without challenges. Examples include issues
around who is experiencing the problem and how they perceive it (Ansari et al., 2012), biases towards addressing some and neglecting
other problems, such as problems affecting minorities, rural or low-income communities (Kobeissi, 200 ; Slade Shantz et al., 201 ;
Swanson and Bruni-Bossio, 201 ), and problem prioritization in terms of what problem to tackle first amidst a long list of needs (Dutta,
201 ) and varied community interests (Balasescu, 2010). As a result of these challenges, some entrepreneurial efforts to create societal
impact for beneficiary communities have fallen short. For instance, many NGO and microfinance interventions intending to stimulate
entrepreneurship in poverty contexts have failed to produce the hoped-for results (Ansari et al., 2012; Chliova et al., 2015) and have
even disrupted traditional community self-reliance, while increasing debt dependence and reliance on retailers (Bateman, 2010).
Further, researchers have also reported instances of unanticipated negative outcomes of entrepreneurship, such as crime, social
exclusion (Hall et al., 2012), loss of identity (Quist and Nygren, 2015), and loss of culture in the sense that young community members
no longer feel connected to what they perceive are the unchanging ways of traditional communities (Tapsell and Woods, 2010). For
instance, Dana and Light (2011) report accounts of entrepreneurs coming up with innovative but culturally destructive market-based
alternatives that shift subsistence farmers, hunters and gatherers, herders, and fisher folk into the paid labor force. Finally, entre-
preneurship can also sew division and catalyze fundamental (and unintended) changes in the community s social structure over time
(Dinger et al., 2020).
These challenges are further exacerbated by the difficulty of ensuring equal distribution of benefits within a community. Our
review reveals cases of benefits being largely appropriated by community leaders, and favoring elites (Gilberthorpe, 201 ) or well-
S Bac et al
ig. 2. A comprehensive framework of communities roles at the intersection of entrepreneurship and societal impact creation.
S Bac et al
endowed households who have disproportionate control over rule-making (Daftary, 201 ), with little attempt to include marginalized
groups (Mair et al., 201 ; Uduji et al., 2020). Research also points to the existence of community boundaries (Marti et al., 201 ) that
create obstacles for outsiders to bring about change (McKeever et al., 2015; Pret and Carter, 201 ).
To conclude, given that the notion of ene ciary is common in efforts to create societal impact, the dominant emphasis on com-
munities as beneficiaries of entrepreneurship is not unexpected. Even so, portraying communities as mere passive beneficiaries of
entrepreneurship neglects the many other, more active roles that communities can assume when leveraging entrepreneurship to
generate societal impact.
3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation in communities— ommunities as conte t

Another large body of literature focuses on entrepreneurship in communities. Specifically, 12 communities out of the 1
communities we coded ( .2 ) describe community as the conte t in which societal impact is generated by means of entrepreneurship.
As Audia et al. (200 ) note, “a community is not simply a place where a founder happens to be, but a factor that in uences much of the
entrepreneurial process and its outcomes” (p. ). As such, “different communities, at different times, will affect different entre-
preneurial actors and processes in different ways.” (Hindle, 2010, p. 00) Below we summarize the ways in which community as
context plays out in the entrepreneurial process and its outcomes—both positively and negatively.
First, community as context can be a catalyst for new venture creation by channeling entrepreneurial efforts towards solving a
pressing problem in a community (Almandoz, 2012; Hertel et al., 201 ; ork et al., 201 ). Second, the kind of environment a com-
munity context provides in uences the types of entrepreneurial activities that emerge—from independent economic activities to
socially-embedded (Ratten and Welpe, 2011) or community-embedded initiatives (Lumpkin and Bacq, 2021). Accordingly, some
studies look at the contextual conditions that lead to entrepreneurial activity in general (Fröcklin et al., 201 ; Hisano et al., 201 ) and,
more specifically, to the types of organizations that emerge to create societal impact, including social enterprises (Pinto and Blue,
201 ; Rivera-Santos et al., 2015), cooperatives (Liu and van Witteloostuijn, 2020) and CBEs (Marquis and Lounsbury, 200 ). Third, a
community context also affects venture characteristics. Some argue that the geographic characteristics of a community in uence the
social networks of social entrepreneurship which, in turn, affect its impact (Bosworth et al., 2015; Huttunen, 2012). Other researchers
have examined the link between community context and entrepreneurs practices, decisions, and strategies (e.g., Achidi Ndofor and
Priem, 2011; Rivera-Santos et al., 2015; Slade Shantz et al., 201 ). For example, Pret and Carter (201 ) study the association between
community norms and cooperative behaviors, such as peer support and resource sharing. Worth noting is the focus of a few studies on
ethnic communities which favor maintenance of cultural traditions and prevention against social con icts (Fontana et al., 201 ), as
opposed to financial capital and profit (Pinto and Blue, 201 ). In these cases, the community context creates “unique styles of
entrepreneurship, which are often community-orientated, and with diverse livelihood outcomes.” (Cahn, 200 , p. 1).
These factors within communities that in uence the entrepreneurial process suggest that “community embeddedness” (Lumpkin
and Bacq, 2021) is also likely to affect the outcomes of the process, including the societal impact created, such as the alleviation of
social ailments (Mair et al., 201 ), or the improvement of well-being in the aftermath of social (George et al., 201 ) and environmental
(Mrkajic et al., 201 ) shocks. Embedding a venture in a community context can have other benefits as well. For example, incumbent
community structures can facilitate access to financial resources (Fröcklin et al., 201 ; estrum and Rasmussen, 201 ) and support
mobilizing inhabitants for collective action (Hertel et al., 2021; Pathak, 201 ; estrum, 201 ).
By contrast, our review also reveals many contextual factors of communities that inhibit entrepreneurship and its success, espe-
cially revolving around formal institutions (e.g., Kistruck et al., 2011; Matos and Hall, 2020) and informal ones such as culture
(Huggins and Thompson, 201 ; Slade Shantz et al., 201 ). Further, despite the aforementioned advantages of community embedd-
edness, too much community embeddedness can work against the pursuit of innovative ideas by restricting access to diverse infor-
mation and resources (Somerville and McElwee, 2011; estrum, 201 ). Contextual norms prevailing in a community can also inhibit
entrepreneurship for certain groups; most notably, studies report community norms preventing women from accessing information,
markets, opportunities, and funding (Mair et al., 2012; Powell and Eddleston, 201 ; enkatesh et al., 201 ). In that vein, community
culture has been found to hamper the adoption of new green policies ( ork et al., 201 ) or other responses to serious social problems
(Lawrence, 201 ).
To conclude, scholars stress the importance of understanding community as a context for creating ventures that can bring about
community-level change (Bosworth et al., 2015; McNamara et al., 201 ; Roundy and Bayer, 201 ) or effective impact-oriented policy
(e.g., Garrigós Simón et al., 201 ). Community involvement is further enhanced when communities take on more agentic roles,
working closely ith entrepreneurs to create positive societal impact.
3 3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation ith communities— ommunities as supporters and partners
Within this role, we distinguish between, on the one hand, communities as supporters, implying short-term, task-specific, and
uncritical community involvement, and, on the other hand, communities as partners, implying longer-term, broader, and more
empowering community involvement. Our coding reveals that the body of articles reviewed contains descriptions of 1 0 ( 1.1 )
communities as supporters of entrepreneurial initiatives for societal impact creation and (1 . ) communities as partners of
entrepreneurial endeavors.
331 ommunities as supporters A large part of the literature views communities as actors who provide support for entrepre-
neurship in a variety of ways, including providers of different kinds of capital, informants, co-decision-makers, co-developers, or
volunteers. As capital providers, communities can support entrepreneurial endeavors by giving access to community networks and
S Bac et al
social capital (Cruz and Fromm, 201 ; Henry et al., 201 ; ork et al., 201 ), information and human capital (McDermott et al., 200 ),
financial capital (Bhatt and Ahmad, 201 ), and other forms of capital such as legitimacy (Ruebottom, 201 ), and natural capital
(Espeso-Molinero et al., 201 )—or a mix of all these forms of resources (Hertel et al., 2021). Scholars have also noted the potential of
harnessing cultural capital in the form of an existing community s identities and traditions (Dentoni et al., 201 ; Hertel et al., 201 ).
Research shows that, as informants, communities can enhance societal impact creation that aligns with community expectations
(Giovannini, 2015) by assisting entrepreneurial actors in their understanding of local problems and needs (Pret and Carter, 201 ). For
instance, a community can help identify a physical location, determine appropriate usage fees, and find qualified local staff for an
entrepreneurial initiative (McMullen and Bergman, 201 ). Moreover, communities may be involved in collective, group-based de-
cision-making to align the ventures mission (Siqueira et al., 2020; Somerville and McElwee, 2011) and help secure community support
by generating a sense of ownership among the community members (Hertel et al., 2021; Salvato et al., 2020). Further, communities
may be actively involved in the design and development of entrepreneurial ventures, thereby co-creating impact (Lumpkin and Bacq,
201 ; Sun and Im, 2015). Montgomery et al. (2012), for example, report that involving community members in framing and designing
social entrepreneurial ventures enhances legitimacy and their ability to serve the social cause. Finally, entrepreneurs often face
challenges of resource scarcity at the early stages of venture creation, which can be overcome in part by involving community members
as volunteers (Haugh, 200 ; Sonnino and Griggs-Trevarthen, 201 ).
However, the literature also suggests that this positive image is often rather nuanced. First, not all communities are resource-rich.
For instance, gathering the resources needed to combat social problems is a key challenge for social entrepreneurs operating in
contexts plagued by poverty (Langevang and Namatovu, 201 ). Second, the mere presence of important resource pools in the com-
munity does not guarantee that the community will act as a supporter (Hertel et al., 201 ); rather, mobilizing community support can
be challenging (Siqueira et al., 2020) and requires specific skills. Research suggests, for example, that communication, long-term
orientation, and members sustained participation are vital to the success of entrepreneurial initiatives (Bendul et al., 201 ; Haugh,
200 ; Hertel et al., 2021; Mitzinneck and Besharov, 201 ). Further, guaranteeing community participation in governance and man-
agement can be challenging due to con icts between social groups, uneven and unequal support within a community, and local inertia
(Grube and Storr, 201 ; Meyer, 2020). In such cases, intermediary organizations may be necessary to catalyze entrepreneurial action
and community development (Lyons and Wyckoff, 201 ).
To conclude, communities can act as supporters of entrepreneurial ventures aimed at societal impact creation. et, in such cases,
the community involvement is confined and tends to remain short-term, informative, and selective (Powell et al., 201 ).
33 ommunities as partners We also find examples in which the communities act as official partners of entrepreneurial ventures
with the joint goal of generating societal impact. In these cases, the entrepreneurial venture is not owned or led by the community but
by entrepreneurs who systematically involve the community in business creation and operations. In such partnerships, the venture is
accountable to both the business owners and the community (Nwankwo et al., 200 ). In the U.S., Community Development Corpo-
rations are one such formal arrangement between communities and entrepreneurial ventures; their more formal governance devices,
such as boards composed of at least one third community members, aim to ensure the venture is benefiting the community (Dubb,
201 ). While some partnerships are relatively simple and span just one community and an entrepreneurial venture, others, such as
cross-sector partnerships (CSPs), are more complex and include multiple partners, such as governments and NGOs. Interestingly,
although various articles emphasize the benefits of involving communities as partners in CSPs, only a small group of articles in the
body of work reviewed provides concrete examples. These include Abedin et al. (201 ), who note the strong opportunities for for-profit
corporations to partner with social enterprises to meet society s increasing expectations of ethical consciousness by leveraging
members of an online community, and Olabisi et al. (201 ), who walk readers through the challenges of sustaining a formal part-
nership between an indigenous community based in East Africa and a Spanish-based multinational corporation (MNC) characterized
by significant power imbalances. The latter study reveals the importance of both the indigenous community and the MNC being
committed to the partnership and to each other, which, in this case, translated into a need to provide high-quality craftsmanship while
simultaneously improving the livelihood of and increasing opportunities for the marginalized.
Extending foundational insights from the community development field (Ostrom, 1 0; Sen, 1 ), some argue that the success of
CSPs is a function of the extent to which they help communities develop the capacity to collectively address their own problems and to
have a voice in the decisions that affect them (Kania and Kramer, 2011; Mitzinneck and Besharov, 201 ). This sometimes manifests in
different hierarchical arrangements with CSPs, including making communities the conveners of the partnership, which can help secure
commitments from the different parties (Dorado and az, 200 ). By contrast, when communities are considered only junior partners, it
can undermine effectiveness, as Nike learned when its World Shoe Project failed because of its inability to work effectively in part-
nership with local actors embedded in rural communities (Reficco and Márquez, 2012).
Our review underscores that sometimes the community involvement required to support a community enterprise is not available or
possible. For instance, indigenous communities that are among the world s poorest are often ill-equipped to engage in a thriving,
mutually beneficial partnership with an MNC (Olabisi et al., 201 ). In communities under extreme stress, or in very undeveloped areas,
the involvement of an international charity or some other organization may be necessary to advance effective societal change
(Nwankwo et al., 200 ). This also raises the issue of voice and power lent to communities as partners: even when made partners,
underprivileged communities tend to be “spoken for” rather than “listened to” (Nwankwo et al., 200 ).
Several other studies point to the challenges of engaging communities as partners. These include cautioning about the risk of
disrupting local social structures, for instance, by shifting gender-based power dynamics (Pueyo et al., 2020), or representing those in
the community who already are powerful (Meyer, 2020). Another challenge relates to the long-term nature of societal issues and the
S Bac et al
fact that participation from diverse communities over a sustained period of time may ebb and ow (Grodal and O Mahony, 201 ).
Research also shows that the success of such partnerships is contingent on the choice of the right partners (Gillett et al., 201 ), the right
number of partners (Grodal and O Mahony, 201 ), and alignment of partners assumptions, goals, and expectations (Gillett et al., 201 ;
Lumpkin and Bacq, 201 ; O Mahony and Lakhani, 2011; estrum, 201 ). In terms of the outcomes of formal collaborations with
indigenous communities, research reports an unequal distribution of benefits in favor of for-profit companies that obtain natural
resources or intellectual and biological knowledge at the expense of communities (Olabisi et al., 201 ). This stands in contrast to the
ideal of “profitable partnerships” championed by global corporations and BOP communities (Calton et al., 201 ).
To conclude, building new types of partnerships that include communities as equal actors has gained in relevance and importance
(e.g., Cornelius and Wallace, 2010; Ryan et al., 2020). Involving the community as a formal partner promotes more efficient harnessing
of community resources and encourages long-term commitment from the community. In contrast to involving communities as mere
supporters, a formal partner role contributes to cultivating skills, confidence and social capital among community members, thereby
enhancing their self-help capacity.
3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation ena led y communities— ommunities as opportunity creators
While our research revealed only seven communities (2.2 ) that contribute to societal impact creation by enabling entrepre-
neurship through creating opportunities, we include this highly relevant role in our framework because of mounting evidence that the
community is an overlooked actor that is becoming increasingly important in management and entrepreneurship research (e.g.,
Lumpkin and Bacq, 201 , 2021). As such, we expect this under-researched area to gain in prevalence in the future. Indeed, com-
munities as opportunity creators matter for societal impact creation in three main ways: a) they can change organizational landscapes
and create spaces for new types of organizations to prosper (Hiatt et al., 200 ); b) they can create new norms, property rights, and
legislation that establish incentives for alternative entrepreneurial solutions (Dorado, 201 ; Montgomery et al., 2012; Pacheco et al.,
201 ); and c) they can create new markets or shift market equilibria (Hiatt et al., 200 ; Sine and Lee, 200 ; Weber et al., 200 ). When
aggregations of individuals coalesce around ambitious goals and mobilize the required resources, the ensuing economic and cultural
changes create opportunities for new ventures to emerge and for societal impact to be generated (Dorado, 201 ; Grodal and O Mahony,
201 ; ork et al., 201 ).
Social movements have been shown to be central catalysts of collective entrepreneurial processes (Rao et al., 2000; Schneiberg,
2002), but our review reveals that not all communities enabling entrepreneurship by creating opportunities do so using social
movement activities. For instance, Steiner and Atterton (2015) found that rural communities catalyzed entrepreneurial responses to
specific challenges in their locale by proactively and skillfully turning them into entrepreneurial opportunities. Although the op-
portunities that arise can be seized by a community itself, in most cases, they are pursued by other entrepreneurial agents (Bakas,
201 ). In addition to job creation and service provision, entrepreneurship enabled by communities has been shown to generate societal
impact by opening spaces for eco-friendly and more ethical products and services (Sine and Lee, 200 ; Weber et al., 200 ; ork et al.,
201 ).
When communities generate entrepreneurial opportunities, they enable certain forms of entrepreneurship and impact creation that
were not possible before. However, this pioneering role is not without challenges. First, successful change initiatives require the
development of a common language and basic premises on which to lay the foundation for collective action—a process that can cause
tensions and con icts (Hargrave and an de en, 200 ). Second, geographic and occupational embeddedness can impede change, for
instance, when the initiators are second career farmers who are not rooted in traditional local farming communities (Weber et al.,
200 ).
To conclude, while entrepreneurship and societal impact creation enabled by communities accounts for only a small share of the
community literature, its relevance is high: when communities take on such a role, the entrepreneurial opportunities they generate can
lead to large-scale changes that foster societal impact creation.
3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation driven y communities— ommunities as entrepreneurs

A growing body of literature (e.g., estrum, 201 ; estrum et al., 201 ) is focused on communities that create societal impact by
becoming entrepreneurs themselves (Hertel et al., 201 ; Marconatto et al., 201 ; Murphy et al., 2020). Our review yields evidence of
5 (1 .0 ) communities acting as entrepreneurs to generate societal impact. Research on that role is largely focused on what Peredo
and Chrisman (200 ) called community-based enterprises (CBEs), that is, enterprises that are collectively established, owned, and
controlled by community members for the purpose of generating economic, social, and/or ecological benefits (Hertel et al., 201 ).
CBEs can take on various forms (Somerville and McElwee, 2011), operate as for-profit or not-for-profit enterprises (Dubb, 201 ;
Marconatto et al., 201 ), and emerge in a wide variety of industries and sectors (Haugh, 200 ). Beyond CBEs, there are other examples
of community enterprises that do not involve all sections of the community yet rest on collective entrepreneurial action by several
community participants. By joining forces, community members harness their resources to collectively establish entrepreneurial
ventures that contribute to sustainable, local, and societal development, and yield benefits likely unattainable for individual entre-
preneurs (Hertel, 201 ), and more effective and lasting than top-down development aid (Peredo and Chrisman, 200 ).
Researchers have investigated how CBEs aim to address a myriad of social and ecological problems faced by communities across the
globe (Hertel, 201 ), including recovery and economic development after exogenous shocks or natural disasters (Gray et al., 201 ).
For instance, Dentoni et al. find evidence of CBE initiatives launching in response to shocks depriving the community of essential
services (e.g., local public school) or endangering their use of resources (e.g., declining fishing yields). Other impact areas include
health and well-being (Gordon et al., 201 ), culture preservation (Dana and Light, 2011; Murphy et al., 2020), environmental pro-
tection (Marconatto et al., 201 ), and the harmonization of economic development with traditions and culture (Giovannini, 2015;
S Bac et al
Murphy et al., 2020).

Despite the aforementioned benefits, our review also reveals several challenges. The founding of a CBE is only triggered if com-
munity leaders decide to take their fate into their own hands and, instead of waiting for a top-down solution, collectively assume
responsibility for tackling the problem (Berglund et al., 201 ; Hertel et al., 201 ). Research also shows that a community s collective
action is facilitated in more sociable communities with a more diverse non-profit sector (Rao and Greve, 201 ), and hindered in
racially diverse communities characterized by lower solidarity (Rao et al., 2010). Like most enterprises, CBEs are generally not
intended to be temporary; and, like other enterprises, they may or may not last (Peredo and Chrisman, 200 ). Importantly, scholars
also report on the downside of collective venture creation, including ineffective decision-making processes and vested individual
interests, which give rise to con icts and mission drift (Haugh and Pardy, 1 ; Lobo et al., 201 ). Such challenges can spur the loss of
community support or the breakdown of an entire enterprise ( ega and Keenan, 201 ).
To conclude, when communities become entrepreneurs, local insights, resources and relations can contribute to creating societal
change with deeper roots in the community history and culture. Given that examples of communities as entrepreneurs have just begun
to emerge in the literature, it would be hasty to conclude that such an approach is unconditionally beneficial without taking a closer
look at the community itself, not as a homogenous whole, but as a complex entity with diverse motivations and constraints.
Taken together, our review highlights a continuum of diverse roles that communities play for entrepreneurship aimed to create
societal impact, ranging from passive beneficiaries to highly active agents of change. Table 2 summarizes the key findings presented in
this section.
. apping community types and roles community as a dynamic concept
Building on the findings described in the previous section, it appears that a community s type(s) and the role(s) it plays are
associated. Specifically, an analysis mapping community types onto community roles reveals that, in general, the more formalized the
community is, the more active the role it plays. While the framework of roles presented in Fig. 2 shows variation in terms of degree of
agency (from passive to active), the five community types differ in their degree of formalization, that is, the extent to which they are
organized and share agreed upon terms. The degree of formalization ensues from the extent to which communities exist because of
circumstances (less formalized) or more intentionally (more formalized). Communities of place, identity and fate tend to be less
formalized whereas communities of interest and practice tend to be more formalized. For instance, in most communities of place,
community boundaries are fully permeable and members can freely choose to join or leave whenever they want; members of com-
munities of place are usually not formally bound by any means to the other people they share geography with. Many communities of
practice, by contrast, have clear membership criteria, governance systems and may even be bound by the terms of a legal agreement.
To elaborate, we find evidence that less formalized and more broadly defined communities of place, identity and/or fate tend to
assume more passive roles in relation to entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact creation (i.e., beneficiary, context or supporter). In
these cases, communities are the recipients of the created benefits, affect or support the entrepreneurial activity, but do not take on an
agentic or leading role in the process. Conversely, more formalized communities of interest and practice are more likely to act as
official partners of entrepreneurial ventures, or become entrepreneurs themselves in efforts to generate impact.
Recall that our analysis found many combinations of community types. With that in mind, our findings can be summarized by the
following three points: a) any combination of communities of place, identity and fate—without interest and practice—generally as-
sumes the role of beneficiaries, context, or supporters; b) shared interest (alone or combined with other community types) is necessary
for the partner and opportunity creator roles; and, c) practice (alone or combined with other community types) is necessary for the
entrepreneur role. Fig. summarizes the main role-type combinations revealed by our analysis.
While the finding above implies a somewhat deterministic relationship between type of community and the role it can assu-
me—thus running the risk of relegating communities of place, identity and fate to being rather powerless and passive recipients of
entrepreneurship and societal impact creation—the analysis also reveals an important insight that mitigates against such a conclusion.
Specifically, our evidence shows two kinds of community dynamics that enable communities to assume more agentic roles. First,
existing communities can change with regard to their defining characteristics by engaging in entrepreneurship (i.e., community
morphing). Second, existing communities can spawn new (sub-)communities which tend to be more formalized (i.e., community
emergence). Tables and offer a summary of the key patterns of community morphing and community emergence we came across in
the literature.
1 ommunity morphing
In various articles, we observed the morphing of existing communities—that is, a change in the defining characteristics of existing
communities. Although some researchers have argued that entire communities (e.g., communities of place, identity and fate) can turn
into more formalized communities (e.g., communities of place, identity, fate, and interest, and practice) (e.g., Peredo and Chrisman,
200 ), many others have explicitly refuted that idea (e.g., Handy et al., 2011; Somerville and McElwee, 2011; alchovska and Watts,
201 ). In support of the latter, our review shows that complete changes in community characteristics are not likely to happen in reality
Table B.1 in Appendix B provides counts and percentages of different combinations of community types for each community role.
These tables represent the more salient cases of community morphing and emergence we found in the literature reviewed, and are thus not
comprehensive of all possibilities of community morphing and emergence.
S Bac et al
a le 2
Community roles in entrepreneurship aimed to create societal impact.
Role Description Exemplar Papers (by order of appearance in the text)
1. Beneficiary Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation for communities ommunities as eneficiaries ( .1 )
• Social benefits such as provision of basic goods and services, inequality reduction • Slade Shantz et al. (201 ); Hall et al. (2012); Tobias
or poverty alleviation vs. environmental benefits such as climate change and et al. (201 ); Gray et al. (201 ); McFadgen (201 )
environmental degradation mitigation
• Benefit for community in which entrepreneurship takes place vs. for external • McKeever et al. (2015) vs. ain and Koch (2020);
communities enkataraman et al. (201 )
• Benefits from reduction of negative effects vs. generation of positive impact • Ansari et al. (2012); McMullen and Warnick (201 )
• Intended, direct and indirect, vs. unintended benefits of community involvement • Kimmel and Hull (2012) vs. Dinger et al. (2020)
• Trend towards empowerment, capacity building for self-help, and resilience • Rao and Greve (201 ); Ansari et al. (2012)
building as intended benefits
Key actor: entrepreneurs
Challenges:
Complexity of and lack of attention to certain problems, contested effectiveness
and unintended negative side effects of certain entrepreneurial solutions, unequal
distribution of benefits within and beyond community
2. Context Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation in communities ommunities as context ( .2 )
• Community as context functions as catalyst triggering and driving • Almandoz (2012); Hertel et al. (201 ); ork et al.
entrepreneurship and societal impact creation (201 )
• Community as context affects the type of entrepreneurial action and, therefore, • Hisano et al. (201 ); Rivera-Santos et al. (2015)
the societal impact generated as an outcome (e.g., “conventional” vs. social vs.
community-based)
• Community as context affects entrepreneurial venture characteristics and, • Huttunen (2012); Pret and Carter (201 ); Achidi
therefore, the societal impact generated as an outcome (e.g., cooperative Ndofor and Priem (2011)
behaviors)
• Embeddedness as key to mobilizing resources and catalyst of impact creation • Lumpkin and Bacq (2021); Mair et al. (201 );
Mrkajic et al. (201 )
Key actor: entrepreneurs
Challenges:
Embeddedness, culture, norms and institutions as impediments to
entrepreneurship
. Supporter Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation with communities ommunities as supporters ( 1.1 )
• Community as a source of social, human, financial, cultural and natural capital • Cruz and Fromm (201 ); Bhatt and Ahmad (201 );
Espeso-Molinero et al. (201 ); Hertel et al. (201 );
• Community as informant, co-decision-maker, co-developer or volunteer, • Lumpkin and Bacq (201 ); Sonnino and Griggs-
enabling entrepreneurship for societal impact creation Trevarthen (201 )
Key actors: entrepreneurs, community, and possibly other actors
Challenges:
• Unequal distribution of existing community capital, challenges related to
mobilizing and sustaining community support, complexity of management and
governance, con icts between supporters from communities
. Partner Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation with communities ommunities as partners (1 . )
• Representation of community in entrepreneurial venture and accountability of • Nwankwo et al. (200 )
venture towards community
• Community partnership as a tool to harness community resources, encourage • Mitzinneck and Besharov (201 )
long-term community commitment and enhance local self-help capacity
• Partnership between only one community and one venture vs. CSPs • Abedin et al. (201 ); Olabisi et al. (201 )
Key actors: entrepreneurs, community, and possibly other actors
Challenges:
Biased choice of partner communities, frequent patronizing of “weaker”
communities, challenges related to mobilizing and sustaining community as
partners, unequal distribution of benefits, challenging choice of the “right” partner
5. Opportunity Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation enabled by communities ommunities as opportunity creators (2.2 )
creator • Communities changing organizational landscapes, thereby creation • Bridwell-Mitchell (201 )
opportunities for entrepreneurship and societal impact creation
• Communities creating new norms, property rights, and legislation that establish • Heilbrunn (201 )
incentives for alternative entrepreneurial solutions and societal impact creation
• Communities creating new markets or shifting market equilibrium, thereby • Sine and Lee (200 ); Weber et al. (200 )
creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and societal impact creation
• Social movement communities as central catalysts of such collective processes • ork et al. (201 ); Steiner and Atterton (2015)
Key actors: (1) community; (2) entrepreneurs
(continued on ne t page)
S Bac et al
a le 2 (continued )
Role Description Exemplar Papers (by order of appearance in the text)
Challenges:
“Pioneering” challenges related to finding common language and basic premises
. Entrepreneur Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation driven by communities ommunities as entrepreneurs (1 .0 )
• Communities joining forces and acting collectively to establish entrepreneurial • Peredo and Chrisman (200 ); Hertel et al. (201 );
ventures, thereby creating societal impact that is often unattainable for individual Dubb (201 ); Marconatto et al. (201 )
entrepreneurs
• CBEs as effective strategy to tackle local and societal problems • Haugh (200 ); Hertel (201 )
• CBEs as tool for using resources, revitalizing regions, preserving culture and the • Gray et al. (201 ); Dentoni et al. (201 ); Dana and
natural environment Light (2011)
Key actors: community = entrepreneur
Challenges:
Dependence on agentic community leaders, CBE creation and success hampered by
certain community characteristics, challenging governance and potential con icts,
challenges to ensure long-time success of CBE solution
ig. 3. A joined view of community types and community roles.
(or at least are not documented in the literature). It is, for instance, unlikely that an entire, unformalized, community of place develops
a shared interest (e.g., sustainable production and consumption) that is strong enough to become a defining feature of the commu-
nity—even if a large part of the community is suddenly sensitized, in our example, to sustainability through a crisis event. Similarly,
full overlap between a community previously only bound by place and an emerging community of practice to undertake establishing a
CBE is not realistic (Hertel et al., 201 ; Somerville and McElwee, 2011).
Even so, we find in our review multiple descriptions of the morphing of existing communities mostly in relation to their identity
features, usually triggered by shared fate (shocks or stresses, economic or else) (Dinger et al., 2020; McKeever et al., 2015). The
S Bac et al
a le 3
Specification of community morphing.
Scenario of Examplea Type(s) and role(s) before Type(s) and role(s) after Role of entrepreneurship isual representationb
community morphing morphing
morphing
Identity creation M1: Dentoni Place, interest, Place, identity, interest, Entrepreneurship as a transition process from
et al. (201 ) practice–Entrepreneur practice–Entrepreneur communities to enterprises, which yields
individual and group benefits and leads to
shared identity
M2: McKeever Place, fate–Beneficiary, Place, identity, Entrepreneurship as tool to create, renew and
et al. (2015) context & supporter fate–Beneficiary, context, reify a positive identity of place by combining
supporter understanding with entrepreneurial purpose
Identity change M : Langevang Place, fate, identity – Place, fate, identity – Entrepreneurship as tool to renew cultural
and Namatovu Beneficiary, context & Beneficiary, context, identity, thereby rekindling culture to reunite
(201 ) supporter supporter fragmented communities and release war
trauma
M : McInnis- Place, identity – Beneficiary Place, identity – Beneficiary, Entrepreneurship as tool to rebuild its
Bowers et al. & context context community and create new economic
(201 ) structures, thereby leading to resilience
a
M: Morphing. The number is the reference number used in the text; the examples in the table follow the order in which they are mentioned in the text.
b
The full line is for the existing community. Pl: Place; Id: Identity; Fa: Fate; In: Interest; Pr: Practice; ENT: Entrepreneurship. Community roles can be deduced from verbs as follows: benefits =
beneficiary; affects = context; supports = supporter; partners with = partner; changes markets/creates opportunities = opportunity creator; engages in = entrepreneur.
S Bac et al
a le
Specification of community emergence.
Example of Type(s) and role(s) of Type(s) and role(s) of the Role of entrepreneurship isual representationb
community the existing emerging community
emergencea community
E1: Hertel et al. Place, identity, fate – Identity, interest, and Entrepreneurship, enabled by community emergence, as tool to
(201 ) Beneficiary & practice – Entrepreneur address local problems and generate benefits for the existing
supporter community
E2: Gray et al. Place, fate – Place, fate, identity, Entrepreneurship enabled by community emergence and resulting
(201 ) Beneficiary practice – Partner and organizational capabilities as prerequisites for coping with
entrepreneur exogenous shocks
E : Sun and Im Place, fate – Place, identity, practice Entrepreneurship, enabled through opportunity co-creation by
(2015) Beneficiary and fate – Opportunity emerging sub-communities, as a tool for equal local development
creator
E : Sonnino and Place – Supporter Place, interest, and Entrepreneurship driven by emerging sub-community and
Griggs- practice – Entrepreneur supported by existing community as a means to reconnect
Trevarthen communities with their resource-base, thereby enhancing their
(201 ) resilience
a
E: Emergence. The number is the reference number used in the text; the examples in the table follow the order in which they are mentioned in the text.
b
The full line is for the existing community. The dotted line is for the emerging sub-community. Pl: Place; Id: Identity; Fa: Fate; In: Interest; Pr: Practice; ENT: Entrepreneurship. Community roles can be
deduced from verbs as follows: benefits = beneficiary; supports = supporter; partners with = partner; changes markets/creates opportunities = opportunity creator; engages in = entrepreneur.
S Bac et al
literature underlines the power of community identity as a unifying element that can, for instance, strengthen an existing community
or bring smaller community entities together under one shared identity, with the effect of increasing solidarity, collective action, and
resilience (Hertel et al., 201 ; Hjalager, 201 ; ohnstone and Lionais, 200 ). Our analysis reveals two main scenarios of community
morphing through entrepreneurship, both of which can generate significant positive changes for the community and society.
First, we find that, through entrepreneurship, a community that previously did not have a shared identity can develop awareness of
shared elements with which its members identify and, as a result, form an identity (e.g., in et al., 201 ). For instance, Dentoni et al.
Dentoni et al., 201 ; Table , line M1) report evidence of identity co-construction processes in communities of interest and practice
who used to share mostly only a geographic boundary. McKeever et al. McKeever et al., 2015; Table , line M2) observed a community
of place becoming a complex system of social relations and material objects that gave them meaning and identity. The literature also
reports evidence of communities of interest (Battisti, 201 ), or interest and practice (Weber et al., 200 ), engaging in morphing
dynamics fueled by entrepreneurship policies and entrepreneurial action.
Second, a community can morph by strengthening or altering its existing identity (e.g., Langevang and Namatovu, 201 ; Table ,
line M ). Often, this takes the form of moving from an identity related to loss and depletion to an identity related to empowerment
( ohnstone and Lionais, 200 ) or resilience (McInnis-Bowers et al., 201 ; Table , line M ). We also find evidence of entrepreneurship
helping resolve community identity struggles (e.g., Lähdesmäki et al., 201 ; Quist and Nygren, 2015). Overall, we find that entre-
preneurship can challenge and change the dominating structures in an existing community of place. The identity-related morphing
results in various benefits for the communities as shared identity fosters solidarity and resource mobilization (Hertel et al., 2021;
Hjalager, 201 ), and serves as an important source of agency and new entrepreneurial opportunities for local actors (Berglund et al.,
201 ; Hertel et al., 201 ). In addition to stronger identity providing direct benefits to communities that morph, we find that identity-
related community morphing can also help communities assume more agentic roles by preparing the ground for community emer-
gence, a dynamic that we describe next.
ommunity emergence
A central finding from our review is that the characteristics of existing communities do not predetermine the roles the communities
can assume and, thus, the societal impact generated. Instead, novel communities can evolve or be formed with the goal of enabling or
enhancing impact creation. The emerging community can either be a sub-community within the existing community (see E2-E in
Table ), or stretch beyond the boundaries of an existing community to become a new one (see E1 in Table ). However, as discussed
above, there is rarely full overlap between the existing and the emergent community. Most commonly, community emergence occurs
when individuals within a less formalized community that is assuming relatively passive roles set out to create a new and more
formalized sub-community that is then able to adopt more agentic roles.
For instance, a study of an existing community of place serving as context for the work of migrant organizations, documents the
emergence of a sub-community of identity, fate and practice (i.e., community of migrant entrepreneurs) whose members identify as
agents of their own change (Hack-Polay, 201 ). In this case, the push for entrepreneurship—and associated dynamics of emergen-
ce—came from an external source intending to empower through economic opportunity. Stoll et al. (2015) report similar findings in
which, within a community of place taking on context and supporter roles, a new sub-community of practice emerged when fishermen
within the existing community actively participated in the Walking Fish community-supported fishery, thereby enabling themselves to
assume the role of opportunity creators.
By contrast, Hertel et al., 201 ; Table , line E1) find evidence of an emerging community of interest and practice that, by coa-
lescing their efforts around a new shared interest and practice, left behind its more passive roles of beneficiary and supporter and took
on a new identity. The new community is no longer place-based and stretches beyond the original community of place and fate. Gray
et al., 201 ; Table , line E2) provide evidence of both the existing community and the emerging sub-community sharing place and fate
characteristics in which the new identity and practice characteristics that emerged enabled the new community to take on more
agentic roles—partner and entrepreneur. Sun and Im, 2015; Table , line E ) report similar findings for different roles: within an
existing community of place and fate emerged a sub-community of identity and practice that enabled entrepreneurship and generated
positive impact by creating opportunities and new markets. In Sonnino and Griggs-Trevarthen 201 ; Table , line E ) study, the
community of place also functions as supporter but, as the emergent sub-community of interest and practice arose, it became more
entrepreneurial. These examples of emergence, often triggered by shared fate, highlight important features of communities that have
been overlooked in extant community research. We discuss the implications of these and other findings next.
. dvancing research on entrepreneurship community and societal impact
Our review of the literature on entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact has provided systematic evidence of the
importance of communities for understanding entrepreneurship and its outcomes. It has shown that the concept of community is used
ubiquitously, but that the lack of construct clarity and the intermingling of different community types and roles have constrained
research and led to the emergence of multiple, disconnected bodies of literature across disciplines. By developing a nuanced inter-
pretation of what the term community means—an aggregation of individuals ho share place, identity, fate, interest, and or practice, a
comprehensive framework of community roles, and insights into the mechanisms of community morphing and emergence, we have
provided a set of building blocks that scholars can use in their future research endeavors.
Specifically, our community typology and our framework of community roles are intended to help researchers develop a common
language, and identify meaningful, untapped research questions, theories, and methodologies. Such a shared language will contribute
S Bac et al
to bring community to the foreground, grasp the complexities of the construct, and build a more unified and more comprehensive
understanding of this pervasive concept. Next, we turn to these cross-disciplinary insights before outlining key implications for future
research and practice.
1 ross disciplinary learnings a out community research
By reaching across disciplines, our review connects research findings from various disparate sources in original ways, enabling a
new perspective and more encompassing view of community phenomena to surface. With almost half of the articles included in this
review stemming from disciplines other than Management and Entrepreneurship, we have uncovered large bodies of relevant liter-
ature that Management and Entrepreneurship scholars tend to overlook. Although some literatures focus on certain community types
and roles more than others, our analysis reveals highly similar patterns and trends across disciplines. This evidence emphasizes the
possibility—and need—for future research to take down the silos and build on insights from neighboring disciplines when studying
phenomena at the intersection of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact.
First, Management and Entrepreneurship researchers can advance their understanding by importing insights from adjacent disci-
plines (Bacq et al., 2021). Regarding community types, other disciplines serve as exemplars, especially for studying communities of
practice and their entrepreneurial features and processes, which have been proportionally more discussed in Economic Geography and
Regional Science, and Energy. With regard to community roles, Management and Entrepreneurship scholars can draw inspiration from
researchers in the field of Development who study community as entrepreneur in relatively higher proportion compared to other
disciplines. Such studies could trigger insights into the agentic roles played by communities, and enrich the CBE stream of research
which to date mainly appears in the Management and Entrepreneurship journals. Management and Entrepreneurship researchers can
also draw from theoretical lenses used in other disciplines, including social-ecological systems (Fleischman et al., 2010; Fröcklin et al.,
201 ), social innovation (Loga, 201 ; Molina-Maturano et al., 2020), or collective action (Saldarriaga-Isaza et al., 2015; Mac as
ázquez and Alonso González, 2015). Other disciplines, in particular Development, also appear more balanced when it comes to
discussing both positive and negative impacts of entrepreneurship in relation to communities, which Management and Entrepre-
neurship scholars have been urged to consider ( edula et al., 2022).
In addition, the Management and Entrepreneurship literature can benefit from building on other disciplines, especially the Energy
literature, for studying the long-term effects of entrepreneurial action, for example, in terms of sustainability transitions (e.g., Huang
et al., 201 ; Süsser et al., 201 ) and assuming a systemic perspective (e.g., Moskwa et al., 2015), which is necessary to understand the
relationship between organizational action and social and environmental issues (Grewatsch et al., 2021). Overall, we observe that
other disciplines put more emphasis on the generation of insights that build on innovative research settings and provide implications
for practice. The other disciplines therefore constitute sources of inspiration for research settings and phenomena, such as self-
organized citizen groups (Dedeurwaerdere et al., 201 ) or customary land tenure (Scheyvens et al., 2020). While, in the Manage-
ment and Entrepreneurship literature, rich descriptions of unique research settings tend to prevail in journals with lower impact
factors, our analysis shows that higher-ranked journals increasingly appreciate the potential of research in innovative settings to
generate relevant theoretical knowledge with practical implications (e.g., Meyer, 2020; Murphy et al., 2020). The large share of
qualitative studies may hold a clue as to why communities have only recently been addressed in Management and Entrepreneurship
research—because they are complex and rich, and their in uence cannot easily be captured with a few scale items or demographic
statistics. We encourage scholars and journals to publish more of such “management research that makes a difference” (Wickert et al.,
2021).
Second, our review also reveals important perspectives and theoretical contributions by Management and Entrepreneurship
scholars that are suitable for e porting to other disciplines. Regarding community types, other disciplines tend to focus more on place-
based communities (e.g., 1 out of 1 communities discussed in the Energy literature are place-based); the Management and Entre-
preneurship literature can provide interesting and relevant ideas for studying non-place-based communities such as communities of
interest or practice, especially social movement communities (e.g., Sine and Lee, 200 ; Weber et al., 200 ) which provide insights that
substantially enrich our understanding of the spectrum of community roles. The Management and Entrepreneurship literature also has
the highest number of studies that pay attention to communities of fate. The idea that community engagement and action can be a
transformative way to create change in communities hit by crises such as natural disasters (e.g., Dutta, 201 ) or stresses such as
displacement (Harima and Freudenberg, 2020) represents a potentially important exemplar for other community scholars in adjacent
disciplines.
Finally, looking at community roles, Management and Entrepreneurship scholars could export insights on community as context, a
framing that we found disproportionally represented in that discipline ( 0 of all studies). Such studies address the structural and
institutional forces that surround entrepreneurial efforts, and suggest that theories such as embeddedness, structuration, and insti-
tutional theory could fuel new insights for studies rooted in adjacent disciplines that often lack contextual granularity. In fact, re-
searchers in other disciplines have started to borrow, and extend, theoretical frameworks and constructs from the Management and
Entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Barraket et al., 201 ; Cannas et al., 201 ). We hope that our review will further fuel the theoretical
exchange on community phenomena across disciplines. We continue with discussing specific implications and opportunities for future
entrepreneurship research next.
Implications for future research in entrepreneurship
Our findings hold numerous implications for advancing research on (1) the entrepreneurial process, (2) social (i.e., social,
S Bac et al
a le
Theoretical implications for research on entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact.
Entrepreneurship Community roles Agency and formalization of communities Possible theoretical lenses
research topic
gency Study communities as context that move to

Community as conte t and supporter Embeddedness theory
more agentic roles by themselves becoming
in uencing the entrepreneurial process Structuration theory
entrepreneurs
(1) Entrepreneurial
ormali ation Examine how external shocks that
process Community-opportunity
Community as co creator of opportunities trigger changes into more formalized community types
nexus vs. Individual-
and entrepreneurial ventures affect entrepreneurial opportunities, processes and
opportunity nexus
outcomes
Community as a collective entrepreneur Social entrepreneurial

gency Study entrepreneurial intentions in line with
who develops a shared intention to address intentions
communities taking on more agentic roles over time
their own social/environmental issues Unit of analysis
(2) Social
ormali ation Shift research focus from
entrepreneurship Stakeholder governance
Community as more than supporter in communities as resource providers to formalized
Polycentricity
societal impact creation entities that play a major stakeholder role in
System perspective
entrepreneurship aimed to create societal impact
gency Illuminate the relationship between

Community as co creator of opportunities
communities agentic roles and the formation/ Identity theories
and entrepreneurial ventures
( ) Community-based evolution of their identities
enterprises ormali ation Examine how sub-communities
Community as supporter through unique
emerge and formalize, and with what effects on Resourcing theories
resource sharing
resource advantages
Community as conte t in uencing the gency Focus on a larger range of community roles Perspectives on culture and
( ) Ethnic and minority entrepreneurial process across a wider variety of contexts identity
entrepreneurship Community as actor of societal impact ormali ation Study ethnic and minority
Cultural entrepreneurship
creation communities formalization from passive to active roles
environmental, sustainable) entrepreneurship, ( ) CBE, and ( ) ethnic and minority entrepreneurship. While each of these research
topics touches on different aspects of the intersection of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact, they also have alternative
implications in terms of community roles,10 the agency and formalization of communities (contingent on community role and type,
respectively), and suggest a range of possible theoretical lenses. Table 5 summarizes them. As we discuss these implications next, we
encourage future researchers to specify their theoretical assumptions and how these affect the type(s) and role(s) of community, and
the mechanisms at play in the entrepreneurial process.
1 Implications for research on the entrepreneurial process

The context in which entrepreneurial action is embedded has attracted increasing scholarly attention over the past decade (Welter,
2011; Wigren-Kristofersen et al., 201 ). et, the largest part of the entrepreneurship literature still considers context as something “out
there,” thereby neglecting the interplay between context and entrepreneurial processes (Welter and Baker, 2021). Our findings suggest
that communities are a vital component of context in entrepreneurship research, and that different combinations of community types
and roles constitute idiosyncratic in uences that shape—and are shaped by—the entrepreneurial process.
11 esearch implication 1 heori ing conte t Prior entrepreneurial process research affirms the in uence of the business envi-
ronment on entrepreneurial outcomes (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001; Moroz and Hindle, 2012). The business environment itself, in turn, is
often strongly affected by conditions in the community (Plummer and Pe er, 2010) and region (Gilbert, 2012). To advance entre-
preneurship research that theorizes context, researchers will need to move beyond the view of communities as just “static settings” in
which entrepreneurship can generate societal impact, towards a more dynamic and encompassing perspective of entrepreneurs “doing
contexts” (Welter and Baker, 2021, p. ). Our findings on communities morphing and emerging in order to take on more agentic roles
speaks directly to the issue of community dynamics. Such research has implications for embeddedness theory (Granovetter, 1 5;
McKeever et al., 2015; Welter, 2011) and structuration theory (Giddens, 1 ; Giddens, 1 ; Gordon et al., 201 ; ack and Anderson,
2002; Sarason et al., 200 ). For instance, future research could look at how the embeddedness of community actors shapes the
entrepreneurial process, and the nature and scope of the societal impact, including whether the entrepreneurs are addressing societal
issues that are rooted in the structure of the community and how they involve members of the community in the design and instigation
of the solution. Such research could uncover new mechanisms of entrepreneurship actively engaging communities, such as shaping
each other in a mutually virtuous cycle.
10
Table B.2 in Appendix B provides counts and percentages of different community roles in each of the entrepreneurship research topics identified.
S Bac et al
1 esearch implication ommunity opportunity ne us Our review highlights the role of communities as co-creators of
entrepreneurial opportunities that enable entrepreneurship and societal impact creation (e.g., Corner and Ho, 2010; Shepherd et al.,
2020). In line with calls to examine the “entrepreneurial process as a series of steps to generate and refine opportunities through
developing, engaging, and transforming communities of inquiry” (Shepherd and Patzelt, 201 , p. 1 ), our review advocates for
extending the perspective of an “individual-opportunity nexus” (Shane and enkataraman, 2000; enkataraman, 1 ) to a “com-
munity-opportunity nexus.” Given that the notion of the “individual-opportunity nexus” is considered to be the heart of entrepre-
neurship research (Davidsson, 2015), embracing the community-opportunity nexus can reveal important changes in the way we think
about and study entrepreneurship, especially when it comes to societal impact creation (Branzei et al., 201 ). Future research will need
to investigate how different types of communities changing roles affects entrepreneurial opportunities, processes and outcomes.
Because communities, depending on their type(s), are not necessarily equipped to take on agentic roles, they may need to morph and
emerge anew before being able to do so. To witness communities moving from passive to more active roles, researchers need to be on
the lookout for external shocks that trigger communities to formalize to eventually take on more agentic roles through community
morphing and emergence.
Implications for research on social entrepreneurship

Our review also holds important implications for social entrepreneurship research. Despite a growing number of studies that
explicitly highlight the importance of community for societal impact creation through entrepreneurship (Branzei et al., 201 ; Lumpkin
and Bacq, 201 ), most extant research downplays the role of communities and views them as merely beneficiaries or contexts
(Table B.2 in Appendix B). This is surprising since research has shown that community engagement can help overcome challenges
faced by social entrepreneurs, for instance, by mobilizing the necessary resources to support societal impact creation (Dacin et al.,
2011; Hertel et al., 2021; estrum, 201 ).
1 esearch implication 1 Unit of analysis and locus of social entrepreneurial intentions Our review highlights community as a
critical yet under-acknowledged unit of analysis in social entrepreneurship research. This has direct implications for research anchored
in the prosocial—that is pro-others (Batson, 1 )—intentions of entrepreneurs. When a community initiates an entrepreneurial idea,
the locus of its prosocial intentions (e.g., who the beneficiaries are) may differ. For example, the strong associations we found between
communities of identity, interest and/or practice and agentic entrepreneurial roles suggest that, when a community is enabling or
driving entrepreneurship, its intentions may be more inward-looking than focused on the well-being of others. Future researchers may
need to investigate how community-centric views of social entrepreneurship reconcile with underlying theoretical assumptions about
the individual locus of prosocial intentions (Bacq and Alt, 201 ; Shepherd, 2015; Tiwari et al., 2022). In addition, we found that
communities are not inherently static, and that passive communities can become more active when members coalesce around shared
interests to improve their own social well-being through the morphing or emergence of communities of interest or practice. Future
research may benefit from examining how different community roles affect the kind and scope of societal impact created by
entrepreneurship.
esearch implication Sta eholder governance By revealing multiple approaches to community involvement and the different
community dynamics that affect the way entrepreneurial effort is evinced in support of societal impact, our review encourages a
broader understanding of the notion of stakeholders and the way stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010; Freeman et al., 2020) is applied
in Management and Entrepreneurship research. While most of the stakeholder literature adopts an organization-centric understanding
of stakeholder relationships, recent developments in the stakeholder literature relating to collective action problems (e.g., Bridoux and
Stoelhorst, 2022) envision different roles for so-called focal organizations. Our review reveals many configurations that the
community-entrepreneurship relationship can take—for, in, ith, ena led y, and driven y communities—highlighting the importance
and prominence of community as a primary stakeholder in entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact creation (Civera et al., 201 ;
Lumpkin and Bacq, 201 ).
The community roles uncovered by our review have significant implications for future research on the governance of actors
collectively involved in societal impact efforts. For instance, researchers could draw insights from long-standing research on poly-
centricity, in which multiple governing bodies interact to make and enforce rules within a specific policy arena or location (e.g.,
Ostrom, 1 0, 2010). Further, the recent surge of systems perspectives in social entrepreneurship research (Mair and Seelos, 2021)
that portray enterprises as instrumental in changing social systems—not just solving social problems—suggests new possibilities and
opens new lenses through which to view social entrepreneurship and address its research questions. The deeper and more granular
understanding of community roles offered by our framework could also help guide new inquiry in stakeholder governance (Bacq and
Aguilera, 2022).
3 Implications for BE research

Our review underlines the importance of CBEs as a powerful means for societal impact creation. Importantly, we have shown that
any type of community holds the potential to formalize and create new sub-communities that can agentically establish entrepreneurial
ventures with the aim of tackling their unique local problems and generating impact for the community and society at large. Com-
munity morphing and emergence in the context of CBEs bear important implications for theories of identity and resourcing.
31 esearch implication 1 Identity theories A noticeably large share of the CBE literature stresses the importance of shared
S Bac et al
identity to the success of CBE creation and to the long-term sustainability of CBEs. However, while shared identity has mainly been
considered constituting a prerequisite or at least strong catalyst for CBE creation (Murphy et al., 2020; Peredo and Chrisman, 200 ),
our review highlights that a shared identity is also an important outcome of CBE creation, one that can set the stage for further
entrepreneurial action and societal impact creation. Moreover, our work reveals that it might not (only) be the mere existence of a
shared identity that matters for CBE creation and ensuing societal impact creation (Dentoni et al., 201 ), but the content of that identity
also matters (Ashforth et al., 2011)—for instance, whether a shared identity is related to depletion and loss, or to agency and collective
achievements ( ohnstone and Lionais, 200 ). As such, our review calls for further inquiry that unravels the complex multi-level
identity dynamics in communities and CBEs. More specifically, it will be relevant to understand how existing communities imprint
some of their identity features on emerging communities and how, in turn, the sub-communities that emerge alter the identity of their
incumbent host communities (Hertel et al., 201 ). Our review sets the stage for future research to look more closely at how entre-
preneurial action—carried out by individuals, groups, and entire communities—can alter the identities of existing and emerging
communities, making them more agentic and resilient.
3 esearch implication ommunity resourcing Our findings indicate that CBEs may be able to gather human, physical, and
financial resources that are not available to other types of entrepreneurs (Haugh, 200 ; estrum, 201 ) and that community
resourcing is conducive to long-term community development (Barraket et al., 201 ). As Peredo and Chrisman (200 ) emphasize, it is
the community component of a CBE that makes it different from other entrepreneurial initiatives because of “its fundamental merging
of economic and noneconomic goals and its enhanced ability to draw on the social and material resources of the communit(y) in which
it arises” (p. 2 ). Future research will need to dig deeper into how—and with what effect—entrepreneurs can gather resources from
communities, and how emerging sub-communities can harness resources in existing communities (Hertel et al., 2021) without risking
over-embeddedness leading to unavailability of external resources ( estrum, 201 ). It will be interesting to investigate whether, from
a resourcing perspective, it is more promising to establish a new sub-community within the boundaries of the existing host community
and, as such, exclusive of external actors, or to set-up a new community that is partially embedded in the existing community but is also
open to external actors.
Implications for research on ethnic and minority entrepreneurship

The literature on ethnic and minority entrepreneurship portrays entrepreneurship as a solution for rebuilding communities that
should be “at the center of development strategies” (Ratten and Dana, 2015). Even so, entrepreneurship-related development ini-
tiatives often impose a Western or “mainstream” way of thinking about ethnic communities that is disconnected from their values and
practices (Peredo, 200 ). Our typology and framework of community roles and dynamics sets the stage for future research that better
re ects the realities of ethnic and minority communities, and facilitates entrepreneurial action that is meaningful to ethnic commu-
nities (Henry et al., 201 ).
1 esearch implication 1 Em racing cultural idiosyncrasies While ethnic and minority communities are often treated as disad-
vantaged communities of identity which benefit from entrepreneurship initiatives, this review identified the presence of more agentic
perspectives. Ethnic communities are often replete with resources related to culture, values and traditions, which can be a valuable
asset for entrepreneurship and societal impact creation (Cahn, 200 ). Future research will need to shed light on how alternative
approaches to community participation can be created in which ethnic communities actively leverage their resources to foster eco-
nomic development and regain political control (Hindle and Moroz, 2010). Importantly, scholars ought to focus on more active roles of
ethnic communities, such as official partners (Tapsell and Woods, 2010), opportunity co-creators (Murphy et al., 2020), and entre-
preneurs (Dana and Light, 2011), thereby leveraging the idiosyncratic needs of and dynamics in such communities. For instance, while
we have presented identity change as a desirable outcome of entrepreneurship, it can be an undesired side effect in ethnic contexts
(Dana and Hipango, 2011). Extending entrepreneurship inquiry to new—and not necessarily geographic—contexts may provide
opportunities for deeper understandings of entrepreneurship in different national and cultural settings, and for addressing the criticism
that entrepreneurship research lacks diversity in contexts (Thomas and Mueller, 2000). Such examination would also reveal interesting
insights into alternative meanings of entrepreneurial success and how subculture alters these meanings (Mrabure, 201 ).
esearch implication Ethnicity related societal impact Future research is needed that sheds light on how ethnic and minority
communities formalize their shared place or identity around a unique interest or practice that enables them to improve their lot in a
culturally appropriate manner. The cultural entrepreneurship lens, defined as “the processes by which actors draw upon cultural
resources (e.g., discourse, language, categories, logics, and other symbolic elements) to advance entrepreneurship” (Lounsbury and
Glynn, 201 , p. ), lends itself well to addressing these questions. Indeed, the growing literature on cultural entrepreneurship has
focused on the extent to which entrepreneurs claims about their new ventures resonate culturally with audiences (Lounsbury and
Glynn, 2001; Martens et al., 200 ) and affect their efforts to attract resources. Adopting a community perspective and level of analysis
invites cultural entrepreneurship researchers to study interactions between taken-for-granted assumptions related to culture and
formalized arrangements in community settings where entrepreneurial efforts are being leveraged. Such research could generate novel
insights into ways to generate societal impact that are more aligned with a community s ethnicity, symbols, and values.
S Bac et al
3 Implications for research on societal impact creation and measurement
Although, in general, management and entrepreneurship scholars lag behind practitioners in terms of societal impact measurement
(Hertel et al., 2022), a recent review highlights that multiple operationalizations and conceptualizations of the concept of impact in the
entrepreneurship literature actually relate to community (Rawhouser et al., 201 , see p. 2 ). Our review yields additional insights into
ho community roles shape impact metrics. Indeed, embracing the breadth of community roles in relation to entrepreneurship for societal
impact may make it hard to look at the outcomes of social entrepreneurship without recognizing community as a highly salient unit of
analysis of choice. As such, outcomes such as community empowerment, capacity building and resilience are increasingly prevalent
indicators of entrepreneurial efforts that engage communities as supporters or partners (Dutta, 201 ; Rao and Greve, 201 ; Williams
and Shepherd, 201 b). Studies looking at communities as entrepreneurs often report even broader outcomes, such as institutional
change (e.g., Bridwell-Mitchell, 201 ; Saldarriaga-Isaza et al., 2015) and societal transformation (e.g., Dentoni et al., 201 ; Ruebottom
and Auster, 201 ). By contrast, some societal impact metrics are particularly well-suited when studying certain community types. For
instance, in communities of place, livelihoods can be enhanced and poverty alleviation decreased thanks to economic opportunities
associated with the launch of small-scale ecotourism ventures (Wearing et al., 2020). Entrepreneurship in communities of place can
also lead to improved attitudes towards conservation, especially when communities become co-managers of natural resources tied to
the ecotourism venture. In studies of communities of interest, the societal impact tends to be attached to a cause and expressed in more
abstract terms, for example, addressing grand challenges (Grodal and O Mahony, 201 ) or “societal impact through transition to
renewable energies” (Sine and Lee, 200 ).
Bringing community to the fore of entrepreneurship research may also require new variables and conceptualizations of outcomes
that are linked to entrepreneurial activity, including, but not limited to: the overall proportion of community members actively
engaged in entrepreneurial initiatives, the sustainability of engagement, the engagement of community members who tend to be
excluded due to incumbent social structures (e.g., women, the poor), the sustained nature of their engagement over time, increased
levels of community agency, and the extent of the impact in the community from entrepreneurial activities. It is our hope that these and
other new metrics that emerge will bring researchers much needed clarity about how best to account for and measure community, and
assist them as they conceive of community roles beyond the overexamined and limiting role of passive beneficiary.
From a more general methodological standpoint, our review surfaced important concerns regarding the applicability of common
research methodologies and whether the measures being used are appropriate or specific enough to fit the situations in question. For
instance, existing research has been criticized for imposing mainstream epistemologies and worldviews on ethnic contexts (Colbourne
et al., 201 ) and for not engaging the communities under study in the research endeavors (Murphy et al., 2020). As our framework
indicates, different types of community can not only assume different roles but also require specific research approaches and methods.
Future researchers will need to pay attention to holistic, culture-sensitive research methods when studying ethnic communities and
other communities of identity. For instance, participatory action research (McIntyre, 200 ) that is context-specific and iterative
promotes democracy and equality, and offers a range of qualitative (e.g., communicative action-based processes) and quantitative (e.
g., participatory geographical information systems) methodologies to engage communities in research. Our typology will help scholars
better define and understand the object of study and, in doing so, ensure community-methods fit.
ractical implications
The need to embrace and understand communities and their role in societal impact creation through entrepreneurship is para-
mount, not just for researchers but for society generally. The research lag in understanding how entrepreneurship and communities
interact to create societal impact bears negative implications, including growing polarization, tribalism, and the breakdown of diverse
communities into more homogenous and issue-specific communities. Without a more granular understanding of different types of
communities and how they emerge, change, and interact, entrepreneurship scholars lack the tools needed to advise practitioners and
policymakers on how to leverage community for the greater good.
. onclusion
Communities are vital to business and society (Glynn, 201 ; Smith, 1 ). They represent an important frontier for entrepre-
neurship research (Lyons et al., 2012) and are pivotal for understanding societal impact creation (Branzei et al., 201 ). However,
research on the nexus of entrepreneurship, community, and societal impact has tended to be scattered across multiple disciplines,
leading to inconsistent conclusions about the meaning, function, and significance of community. The purpose of this cross-disciplinary,
systematic review was to bring community to the foreground of management and entrepreneurship research by clarifying the com-
munity construct, and offering an overarching framework that addresses the complexities of this pervasive concept. Our analysis
identified five different types of community and six different roles, and revealed how dynamic communities can be when animated by
entrepreneurship aimed at societal impact creation. Our findings further reinforce the view that businesses and political leaders need
the support and engagement of communities to unleash the societal impact creation power of entrepreneurship. We hope that our
review encourages and enables scholars from across disciplines to embrace theoretically interesting and practically relevant future
research aimed at investigating the functioning of community as a key actor and important force for understanding how entrepre-
neurship contributes to the advancement of societal impact.
S Bac et al
Redi authorship contri ution statement
ophie ac Conceptualization; Methodology; alidation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing - Original Draft; isualization.
hristina ertel Conceptualization; Methodology; alidation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing - Original Draft;
isualization.
om umpkin Conceptualization; alidation; Formal analysis; Writing - Review & Editing;; isualization.
ppendix . earch procedure
.1. ournal list

a le .1
Lists the 51 journals selected for our systematic review.
anagement and Entrepreneurship 122 Economic eography and Regional cience

1. Academy of Management Discoveries (1) 1. Annals of Regional Science (0)
2. Academy of Management ournal ( ) 2. Choices (0)
. Academy of Management Perspectives (2) . Ecological Economics ( )
. Academy of Management Review (1) . Ecology and Society ( )
5. Administrative Science Quarterly ( ) 5. Economic Geography (1)
. Business and Society (0) . Geoforum (5)
. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (2 ) . ournal of Economic Geography (0)
. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (5) . ournal of Regional Analysis and Policy (0)
. International ournal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research ( ) . ournal of Regional Science (1)
10. ournal of Business Ethics (22) 0. ournal of Rural Studies (1 )
11. ournal of Business enturing (11) 1. ournal of Sustainable Tourism ( )
12. ournal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy ( ) 2. ournal Urban Affairs (2)
1 . ournal of Management (0) . Papers in Regional Science (0)
1 . ournal of Management Inquiry (1) . Regional Studies (1)
15. ournal of Management Studies ( ) 5. Urban Studies (1)
1 . ournal of Small Business Management ( ) Energy 12
1 . ournal of Social Entrepreneurship (12) . Energy Policy ( )
1 . Organization Science (1) . ournal of Cleaner Production ( )
1 . Organization Studies ( ) u lic dministration 2
20. Small Business Economics ( ) . Policy Studies (2)
21. Strategic Entrepreneurship ournal ( ) . Public Administration Review (0)
22. Strategic Management ournal (1) 50. Public Management Review (0)
Economic Development ommunity Development 51. Public Performance and Management Review (0)
2 . Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics (1)
2 . Community Development ( )
25. Community Development ournal ( )
2 . Development (1)
2 . ournal of Enterprising Communities (2 )
2 . ournal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies ( )
2 . Local Economy ( )
0. World Development ( )
Numbers in brackets are the number of articles we reviewed in a given journal.
.2. rticle search strategy
To identify a comprehensive corpus of studies at the nexus of entrepreneurship, communities, and societal impact, we conducted a
keyword search within the 51 journal titles identified in Table A.1. We performed the search in EBSCO Business Source Complete
because it provides bibliographic and full text content for business research.
.2.1. Search terms (title, abstract, keyword) using Boolean phrase
(social OR environmental OR societal) AND (impact OR value OR change OR responsibility OR action OR performance) AND
entrepreneur* AND communit*.
This search was limited to:
• Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) ournals

• Published Date: 200 /01/01–2020/12/ 1
• Publication Type: Academic ournal
• Document Type: Article
• Language: English
.2.2. Inclusion criteria

We included all articles that deal with:
S Bac et al
• some form of entrepreneurial activity (with entrepreneurship defined as the process through hich novel economic activities and
organi ations come into e istence); as a result, we did not review journals that have a direct focus on government or nonprofit actions
towards communities;
• some type of community;
• and some form of societal impact creation.
.2.3. Exclusion criteria

We e cluded articles that fall beyond the scope of this review on the intersection of entrepreneurship, communities, and societal
impact because they, for instance:
• only brie y mentioned community without going into detail;

• used the term community’ to talk about academic communities, business and industry communities, worker and trade unions, or
communities of states;
All inclusion and exclusion decisions were made verbally during authors ongoing discussions. Two authors reviewed all the ar-
ticles. When one of them identified an article that fit the exclusion criteria, they debated it until a consensus was reached in terms of
including or excluding the article in the final set.
.3. oding and analysis procedure
.3.1. Initial data organization
The final sample of 22 accepted articles was logged in an Excel workbook, recording the following information: ournal, Title,
ear of publication, Author name(s), Abstract.
.3.2. Coding
A manual coding procedure was employed that involved reading each article in depth.
Codes of relevance emerged inductively from multiple iterative rounds of discussion among the team of authors. Two of the authors
then manually coded each of the 22 full-texts along these themes:
1. type(s) of community (place, identity, interest, practice, fate);

2. role(s) of community (beneficiary, context, supporter, partner, opportunity creator, entrepreneur);
. the nature and role of entrepreneurial activity (we inductively coded 11 different types of entrepreneurship which were then
collapsed into these categories: traditional, ethnic, institutional, social, environmental, cooperative, CBE);
. community dynamics (i.e., existing, morphing, emergence);
5. the effect of community involvement on societal impact creation;
. study methodology (qualitative, quantitative or conceptual), theory or literature used, industry, geographical focus (i.e., continent,
country, rural or urban area);
. key findings;
. avenues for future research.
ppendix . dditional analyses o community types roles and entrepreneurship research topics
a le .1
Evidence of research at the intersection of community types and community roles.
Community roles Beneficiary Context Supporter Partner Opportunity creator Entrepreneur
Community type combinations

a b
Place 0.2 52 1. 2 2. . 0 0.0 0 0.0
Place, identity 22 10.5 1 1 . 12 .2 1 2. 0 0.0 0 0.0
Place, identity, fate 1 .1 1 10.5 10 . .0 1 1 . 1 1.
Place, identity, fate, interest, practice 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.
Place, identity, fate, practice 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2. 1 1 . 1 1.
Place, identity, interest 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Place, identity, interest, practice 2 1.0 1 0. 1 0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 .5
Place, identity, practice 1. 2 1. 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 10.5
Place, fate 0 1 .1 22 1 . 1 1 . .0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Place, fate, interest 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2. 0 0.0 1 1.
Place, fate, interest, practice 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2. 0 0.0 5.
Place, fate, practice 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.
Place, interest 0 0.0 0 0.0 2. 1 . 0 0.0 1 1.
Place, interest, practice 1 0.5 2 1. 2. . 0 0.0 1 .0
Place, practice 1. 1 0. 5 . .0 0 0.0 12.
Identity 2. .2 . 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Identity, fate 1. 2 1. 2. 1 2. 0 0.0 0 0.0
(continued on ne t page)
S Bac et al
a le .1 (continued )
Community roles Beneficiary Context Supporter Partner Opportunity creator Entrepreneur
Community type combinations
Identity, interest 1 0.5 1 0. 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Identity, interest, practice 2 1.0 2 1. 2 1.5 2 . 1 1 . 5 .
Identity, practice 2 1.0 0 0.0 1 0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 5.
Fate . 1 0. 2. 1 2. 0 0.0 0 0.0
Interest 2 1.0 1 0. .1 1 . 1 1 . 0 0.0
Interest, practice 0 0.0 0 0.0 .1 1 2. 1 1 . 1 .0
Practice 2 1.0 2. . 2 . 2 2 . 15.
n/s . 0 0.0 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 20 12 1 0 5
a
Number of times each community type or role is counted across the 22 articles.
b
Percentage of representation of that community type combination per community role.
a le .2
Evidence of research at the intersection of community roles and entrepreneurship research topics.
Entrepreneurship research topic Entrepreneurship Social Community-based Ethnic and minority Total
Entrepreneurship enterprise entrepreneurship
Community roles
Beneficiary 110 . 5 .5 2 50. 1. 2 1

Context 12 . . 5. 2 1 .2 2
Supporter 5. 1 11.1 5 . 0 2
Partner 10 . 10 . .5 0 2
Opportunity creator 2.5 2 1. 0 0.0 0
Entrepreneur 1 .2 .1 1 2 . 0
Total 15 12 5 11
ppendix . upplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.101 /j.jbusvent.2022.10 2 1.
Re erences
Abedin, B., Maloney, B., Watson, ., 201 . Benefits and challenges associated with using online communities by social enterprises: a thematic analysis of qualitative
interviews. . Soc. Entrep. 1–22.
Achidi Ndofor, H., Priem, R.L., 2011. Immigrant entrepreneurs, the ethnic enclave strategy, and venture performance. . Manag. , 0– 1 .
Akemu, O., Whiteman, G., Kennedy, S., 201 . Social enterprise emergence from social movement activism: the Fairphone case. . Manag. Stud. 5 , – .
Almandoz, ., 2012. Arriving at the starting line: the impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Acad. Manag. . 55, 1 1–1 0 .
Anderson, A.R., Obeng, B.A., 201 . Enterprise as socially situated in a rural poor fishing community. . Rural. Stud. , 2 – 1.
Ansari, S., Munir, K., Gregg, T., 2012. Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: the role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment.
. Manag. Stud. , 1 – 2.
Ashforth, B.E., Rogers, K.M., Corley, K.G., 2011. Identity in organizations: exploring cross-level dynamics. Organ. Sci. 22, 11 –115 .
Audia, P.G., Freeman, .H., Reynolds, P.D., 200 . Organizational foundings in community context: Instruments manufacturers and their interrelationship with other
organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 51, 1– 1 .
Bacq, S., Aguilera, R. ., 2022. Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: a theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. . Manag. Stud. 5 ,
2 – 0.
Bacq, S., Alt, E., 201 . Feeling capable and valued: a prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. . Bus. entur. ,
– 50.
Bacq, S., Drover, W., Kim, P.H., 2021. Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles in entrepreneurship. . Bus. entur. , 10 1 .
Bacq, S., anssen, F., 2011. The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrep. Reg.
Dev. 2 (5– ), – 0 .
Bakas, F.E., 201 . Community resilience through entrepreneurship: the role of gender. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 11, 1– .
Balasescu, A., 2010. Learning from a Flower Market in Romania: community, social fabric and the promise of economic prosperity. Development 5 , 10– 15.
Barinaga, E., 201 . Tinkering with space: the organizational practices of a nascent social venture. Organ. Stud. , – 5 .
Barnes, B., 2001. Practice as collective action. In: Schatzki, T.R., Cetina, K.K., von Savigny, E. (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge, London,
pp. 1 –2 .
Barraket, ., Eversole, R., Luke, B., Barth, S., 201 . Resourcefulness of locally-oriented social enterprises: implications for rural community development. . Rural.
Stud. 0, 1 –1 .
Bateman, M., 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work ed Books Ltd.
Batson, C.D., 1 . Altruism and prosocial behavior. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New ork, N ,
pp. 2 2– 1 .
Battilana, ., Lee, M., 201 . Advancing research on hybrid organizing – insights from the study of social enterprises. Acad. Manag. Ann. , – 1.
Battisti, S., 201 . Digital social entrepreneurs as bridges in public–private partnerships. . Soc. Entrep. 10, 1 5–15 .
Baumol, W. ., 1 . Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. . Bus. entur. 11, –22.
Bendul, .C., Rosca, E., Pivovarova, D., 201 . Sustainable supply chain models for base of the pyramid. . Clean. Prod. 1 2, S10 –S120.
Berglund, K., Gaddefors, ., Lindgren, M., 201 . Provoking identities: entrepreneurship and emerging identity positions in rural development. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 ,
– .
S Bac et al
Bhatt, P., Ahmad, A. ., 201 . Financial social innovation to engage the economically marginalized: insights from an Indian case study. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 1– 1 .
Bosworth, G., McElwee, G., Smith, R., 2015. Rural enterprise in Mexico: a case of necessity diversification. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. ,
2 – .
Branzei, O., Parker, S.C., Moroz, P.W., Gamble, E., 201 . Going pro-social: extending the individual-venture nexus to the collective level. . Bus. entur. , 551–5 5.
Bridoux, F., Stoelhorst, .W., 2022. Stakeholder governance: solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. , 21 –2 .
Bridwell-Mitchell, E.N., 201 . Collaborative institutional agency: how peer learning in communities of practice enables and inhibits micro-institutional change.
Organ. Stud. , 1 1–1 2.
Cahn, M., 200 . Indigenous entrepreneurship, culture and micro-enterprise in the Pacific Islands: case studies from Samoa. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 20, 1–1 .
Calton, .M., Werhane, P.H., Hartman, L.P., Bevan, D., 201 . Building partnerships to create social and economic value at the base of the global development pyramid.
. Bus. Ethics 11 , 21– .
Cannas, R., Argiolas, G., Cabiddu, F., 201 . Fostering corporate sustainability in tourism management through social values within collective value co-creation
processes. . Sustain. Tour. 2 (1), 1 –155.
Cantino, ., Devalle, A., Cortese, D., Ricciardi, F., Longo, M., 201 . Place-based network organizations and embedded entrepreneurial learning. Int. . Entrep. Behav.
Res. 2 , 50 –52 .
Chliova, M., Brinckmann, ., Rosenbusch, N., 2015. Is microcredit a blessing for the poor A meta-analysis examining development outcomes and contextual
considerations. . Bus. entur. 0, – .
Civera, C., de Colle, S., Casalegno, C., 201 . Stakeholder engagement through empowerment: the case of coffee farmers. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2 , 15 –1 .
Colbourne, R., Moroz, P., Hall, C., Lendsay, K., Anderson, R.B., 201 . Indigenous works and two eyed seeing: mapping the case for indigenous-led research. Qual. Res.
Organ. Manag. An Int. . 15, – .
Cornelius, N., Wallace, ., 2010. Cross-sector partnerships: city regeneration and social justice. . Bus. Ethics , 1– .
Corner, P.D., Ho, M., 2010. How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. , 5– 5 .
Cruz, A.D., Fromm, I., 201 . Understanding the emergence of a social enterprise by highly skilled migrants: the case of Honduras Global Europa. Int. . Entrep. Behav.
Res. 25, 01– 1 .
Curtis, T., 2011. “Newness” in social entrepreneurship discourses: the concept of “danwei” in the Chinese experience. . Soc. Entrep. 2, 1 –21 .
Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., Tracey, P., 2011. Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions. Organ. Sci. 22, 120 –121 .
Daftary, D., 201 . The politics of person, property, technology: emergent development practice in semiarid communities in India. Community Dev. . , 5 –5 .
Dana, L., Hipango, W., 2011. Planting seeds of enterprise. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 5, 1 –211.
Dana, L.-P., Light, I., 2011. Two forms of community entrepreneurship in Finland: are there differences between Finnish and Sámi reindeer husbandry entrepreneurs
Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 1– 52.
Dana, L.-P., Gurau, C., Lasch, F., 201 . Entrepreneurship, tourism and regional development: a tale of two villages. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 5 – .
Daskalaki, M., Hjorth, D., Mair, ., 2015. Are entrepreneurship, communities, and social transformation related . Manag. Inq. 2 , 1 – 2 .
Davidsson, P., 2015. Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization. . Bus. entur. 0, – 5.
Dedeurwaerdere, T., et al., 201 . The governance features of social enterprise and social network activities of collective food buying groups. Ecol. Econ. 1 0, 12 –1 5.
Dentoni, D., Pascucci, S., Poldner, K., Gartner, W.B., 201 . Learning “who we are” by doing: processes of co-constructing prosocial identities in community-based
enterprises. . Bus. entur. , 0 – 22.
Dias, C.S.L., Rodrigues, R.G., Ferreira, . ., 201 . What’s new in the research on agricultural entrepreneurship . Rural. Stud. 5, –115.
Dinger, ., Conger, M., Hekman, D., Bustamante, C., 2020. Somebody that I used to know: the immediate and long-term effects of social identity in post-disaster
business communities. . Bus. Ethics 1 , 115–1 1.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., Lyon, F., 201 . Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda. Int. . Manag. Rev. 1 , 1 – .
Dorado, S., 201 . Small groups as context for institutional entrepreneurship: an exploration of the emergence of commercial microfinance in Bolivia. Organ. Stud. ,
5 –55 .
Dorado, S., az, P., 200 . Conveners as champions of collaboration in the public sector: a case from South Africa. Public Adm. Dev. 2 , 1 1–150.
Dubb, S., 201 . Community wealth building forms: what they are and how to use them at the local level. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 0, 1 1–152.
Dufays, F., Huybrechts, B., 201 . Connecting the dots for social value: a review on social networks and social entrepreneurship. . Soc. Entrep. 5, 21 –2 .
Dutta, S., 201 . Creating in the crucibles of nature’s fury: associational diversity and local social entrepreneurship after natural disasters in California, 1 1–2010.
Adm. Sci. Q. 2, – .
Espeso-Molinero, P., Carlisle, S., Pastor-Alfonso, M. ., 201 . Knowledge dialogue through Indigenous tourism product design: a collaborative research process with
the Lacandon of Chiapas, Mexico. . Sustain. Tour. 2 , 1 1–1 .
Fleischman, F.D., Boenning, K., Garcia-Lopez, G.A., Mincey, S., Schmitt-Harsh, M., Daedlow, K., et al., 2010. Disturbance, response, and persistence in self-organized
forested communities: analysis of robustness and resilience in five communities in southern Indiana. Ecol. Soc. 15 ( ).
Fontana, A., Sastre-Merino, S., Baca, M., 201 . The territorial dimension: the component of business strategy that prevents the generation of social con icts. . Bus.
Ethics 1 1, – 0.
Foss, N. ., Klein, P.G., 200 . The theory of the firm and its critics: a stocktaking and assessment, in: E., B., .-M., G. (Eds.), New Institutional Economics: A Guidebook.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1 – .
Freeman, R.E., 2010. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. In: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Freeman, R.E., Phillips, R., Sisodia, R., 2020. Tensions in stakeholder theory. Bus. Soc. 5 , 21 –2 1.
Fröcklin, S., iddawi, N.S., de la Torre-Castro, M., 201 . Small-scale innovations in coastal communities: shell-handicraft as a way to empower women and decrease
poverty. Ecol. Soc. 2 , art .
Garrigós Simón, F. ., González-Cruz, T., Contreras-Pacheco, O., 201 . Policies to enhance social development through the promotion of SME and social
entrepreneurship: a study in the Colombian construction industry. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 51– 0.
George, G., Kotha, R., Parikh, P., Alnuaimi, T., Bahaj, A.S., 201 . Social structure, reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strateg. Manag. . , 111 –11 1.
Gibbs, D., 200 . Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the development of a sustainable economy. Greener Manag. Int. – .
Giddens, A., 1 . Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. MacMillan, London.
Giddens, A., 1 . The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge, England.
Gilbert, B.A., 2012. Creative destruction: identifying its geographic origins. Res. Policy 1, – 2.
Gilberthorpe, E., 201 . Community development in Ok Tedi, Papua New Guinea: the role of anthropology in the extractive industries. Community Dev. . ,
– .
Gillett, A., Loader, K., Doherty, B., Scott, .M., 201 . An examination of tensions in a hybrid collaboration: a longitudinal study of an empty homes project. . Bus.
Ethics 15 , – .
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 201 . Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 1 , 15– 1.
Giovannini, M., 2015. Indigenous community enterprises in Chiapas: a vehicle for buen vivir Commun. Dev. . 50, 1– .
Glynn, M.A., 200 . Configuring the field of play: how hosting the Olympic games impacts civic community. . Manag. Stud. 5, 111 –11 .
Glynn, M.A., 201 . The mission of community and the promise of collective action. Acad. Manag. Rev. (2), 2 –25 .
Gordon, K., Wilson, ., Tonner, A., Shaw, E., 201 . How can social enterprises impact health and well-being Int. . Entrep. Behav. Res. 2 , – 1 .
Granovetter, M., 1 5. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. . Sociol. 1, 1–510.
Gray, B. ., Duncan, S., Kirkwood, ., Walton, S., 201 . Encouraging sustainable entrepreneurship in climate-threatened communities: a Samoan case study. Entrep.
Reg. Dev. 2 , 01– 0.
Grégoire, D.A., Binder, .K., Rauch, A., 201 . Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship research experiments: a systematic review and best-practice
suggestions. . Bus. entur. , 2 – 10.
S Bac et al
Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., Bansal, P., 2021. Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strat. Organ. https://doi.org/10.11 /
1 12 02110 5.
Grodal, S., O’Mahony, S., 201 . How does a grand challenge become displaced Explaining the duality of field mobilization. Acad. Manag. . 0, 1 01–1 2 .
Grube, L.E., Storr, .H., 201 . Embedded entrepreneurs and post-disaster community recovery. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 0, 00– 21.
Hack-Polay, D., 201 . Migrant enclaves: disempowering economic ghettos or sanctuaries of opportunities for migrants : a double lens dialectic analysis.
. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 1 , 1 – .
Hall, ., Matos, S., Sheehan, L., Silvestre, B., 2012. Entrepreneurship and innovation at the base of the Pyramid: a recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion
. Manag. Stud. , 5– 12.
Hall, .K., Daneke, G.A., Lenox, M. ., 2010. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: past contributions and future directions. . Bus. entur. 25, – .
Handy, C., 1 . Understanding oluntary Organizations. Pelican, London, UK.
Handy, F., Cnaan, R.A., Bhat, G., Meijs, L.C.P.M., 2011. asmine growers of coastal Karnataka: grassroots sustainable community-based enterprise in India. Entrep.
Reg. Dev. 2 , 05– 1 .
Hargrave, T. ., an de en, A.H., 200 . A collective action model of institutional innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1, – .
Harima, A., Freudenberg, ., 2020. Co-creation of social entrepreneurial opportunities with refugees. . Soc. Entrep. 11, 0– .
Haugh, H., 200 . Community-led social venture creation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1, 1 1–1 2.
Haugh, H.M., Pardy, W., 1 . Community entrepreneurship in north east Scotland. Int. . Entrep. Behav. Res. 5, 1 –1 2.
Heilbrunn, S., 201 . Against all odds: refugees bricoleuring in the void. Int. . Entrep. Behav. Res. 25, 10 5–10 .
Heinze, K.L., Soderstrom, S., Heinze, .E., 201 . Translating institutional change to local communities: the role of linking organizations. Organ. Stud. , 11 1–11 .
Henry, E. ., Dana, L.-P., Murphy, P. ., 201 . Telling their own stories: Māori entrepreneurship in the mainstream screen industry. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 0, 11 –1 5.
Hertel, C., Bacq, S., Belz, F.-M., 201 . It takes a village to sustain a village: a social identity perspective on successful community-based enterprise creation. Acad.
Manag. Discov. 5, – .
Hertel, C., Binder, ., Fauchart, E., 2021. Getting more from many—a framework of community resourcefulness in new venture creation. . Bus. entur. , 10 0 .
Hertel, C., Bacq, S., Lumpkin, G.T., 2022. A holistic perspective on social performance in social enterprises—disentangling social impact from operational
sustainability. In: accaro, A., Ramus, T. (Eds.), Social Innovation and Social Enterprises: Toward a Holistic Perspective. Springer, Berlin.
Hertel, C. ., 201 . Community-based Entrepreneurship. Toward a Legitimate Research Domain. Technische Universität München, TUM School of Management.
Hiatt, S.R., Sine, W.D., Tolbert, P.S., 200 . From Pabst to Pepsi: the deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Adm.
Sci. Q. 5 , 5– .
Hindle, K., 2010. How community context affects entrepreneurial process: a diagnostic framework. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 22, 5 – .
Hindle, K., Moroz, P., 2010. Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a definitional framework from the emerging canon. Int. Entrep. Manag. . ,
5 – 5.
Hisano, S., Akitsu, M., McGreevy, S.R., 201 . Revitalising rurality under the neoliberal transformation of agriculture: experiences of re-agrarianisation in apan.
. Rural. Stud. 1, 2 0– 01.
Hjalager, A.-M., 201 . Rural–urban business partnerships—towards a new trans-territorial logic. Local Econ. . Local Econ. Policy Unit 2, –5 .
Hockerts, K., Wüstenhagen, R., 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids - theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable
entrepreneurship. . Bus. entur. 25, 1– 2.
Howard-Grenville, ., Metzger, M.L., Meyer, A.D., 201 . Rekindling the ame: processes of identity resurrection. Acad. Manag. . 5 , 11 –1 .
Huang, P., Broto, .C., Liu, ., Ma, H., 201 . The governance of urban energy transitions: a comparative study of solar water heating systems in two Chinese cities.
. Clean. Prod. 1 0, 222–2 1.
Huggins, R., Thompson, P., 201 . Culture, entrepreneurship and uneven development: a spatial analysis. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 2 – 52.
Huttunen, S., 2012. Wood energy production, sustainable farming livelihood and multifunctionality in Finland. . Rural. Stud. 2 , 5 –55 .
ack, S.L., Anderson, A.R., 2002. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. . Bus. entur. 1 , – .
ain, S., Koch, ., 2020. Crafting markets and fostering entrepreneurship within underserved communities: social ventures and clean energy provision in Asia. Entrep.
Reg. Dev. 2, 1 –1 .
ané, S., an Esch, C., Bilimoria, D., 201 . “Why’d you wanna study that ” A process model of the under-legitimation of a research topic. Acad. Manag. Learn. Ed. 1 ,
01– 2 .
avaid, O., Shamsi, A.F., Hyder, I., 2020. Religious entrepreneurial communities as a solution for socioeconomic injustice. . Enterprising Communities People Places
Glob. Econ. 1 , 15– .
ohnstone, H., Lionais, D., 200 . Depleted communities and community business entrepreneurship: revaluing space through place. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 1 , 21 –2 .
osefy, M., Dean, T. ., Albert, L.S., Fitza, M.A., 201 . The role of community in crowdfunding success: evidence on cultural attributes in funding campaigns to “save
the local theater”. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1, 1 1–1 2.
Kania, ., Kramer, M., 2011. Collective impact. Stanford Soc. Innov. Rev. Winter – 1.
Kannothra, C.G., Manning, S., Haigh, N., 201 . How hybrids manage growth and social–business tensions in global supply chains: the case of impact sourcing. . Bus.
Ethics 1 , 2 1–2 0.
Kanter, R.M., 1 2. Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kaplan, S., 2020. Beyond the business case for social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Discov. , 1– .
Kibler, E., Muñoz, P., 2020. What do we talk about when we talk about community Commentary on “it takes a village to sustain a village” by Christina Hertel, Sophie
Bacq, and Frank-Martin Belz. Acad. Manag. Discov. , 21– 25.
Kimmel, C.E., Hull, R.B., 2012. Ecological entrepreneurship support networks: roles and functions for conservation organizations. Geoforum , 5 – .
Kistruck, G.M., Webb, .W., Sutter, C. ., Ireland, R.D., 2011. Microfranchising in base-of-the-pyramid markets: institutional challenges and adaptations to the
franchise model. Entrep. Theory Pract. 5, 50 –5 1.
Kobeissi, N., 200 . Impact of the community reinvestment act on new business start-ups and economic growth in local markets. . Small Bus. Manag. , –51 .
Kodzi, E.T., 2015. The clash of missions: juxtaposing competing pressures in South Africa’s social enterprises. . Soc. Entrep. , 2 –2 .
Lähdesmäki, M., Siltaoja, M., Luomala, H., Puska, P., Kurki, S., 201 . Empowered by stigma Pioneer organic farmers’ stigma management strategies. . Rural. Stud.
5, 152–1 0.
Langevang, T., Namatovu, R., 201 . Social bricolage in the aftermath of war. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 1, 5– 05.
Lawrence, T.B., 201 . High-stakes institutional translation: establishing North America’s first government-sanctioned supervised injection site. Acad. Manag. . 0,
1 1–1 00.
Linnenluecke, M.K., McKnight, B., 201 . Community resilience to natural disasters: the role of disaster entrepreneurship. . Enterprising Communities People Places
Glob. Econ. 11, 1 –1 5.
Littlewood, D., 201 . “Cursed” communities Corporate social responsibility (CSR), company towns and the mining industry in Namibia. . Bus. Ethics 120, – .
Liu, M., van Witteloostuijn, A., 2020. Emergence of entrepreneurial populations: a feature dimensionality approach. Small Bus. Econ. 5 , 1– .
Lobo, I.D., elez, M., Puerto, S., 201 . Leadership, entrepreneurship and collective action: a case study from the Colombian Pacific Region. Int. . Commons 10, 2.
Loga, ., 201 . Civil society and the welfare state in Norway–Historical relations and future roles. Community Dev. . 5 ( ), 5 –5 1.
Lounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strat. Manag. . 22, 5 5–5 .
Lounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 201 . Cultural Entrepreneurship: A New Agenda For the Study of Entrepreneurial Processes and Possibilities. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lumpkin, G., Dess, G.G., 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle.
. Bus. entur. 1 , 2 – 51.
Lumpkin, G.T., Bacq, S., 201 . Civic wealth creation: a new view of stakeholder engagement and societal impact. Acad. Manag. Perspect. , – 0 .
S Bac et al
Lumpkin, G.T., Bacq, S., 2021. Family business, community embeddedness, and civic wealth creation. . Family Bus. Strat. https://doi.org/10.101 /j.
jfbs.2021.100 .
Lumpkin, G.T., Bacq, S., Pidduck, R. ., 201 . Where change happens: community-level phenomena in social entrepreneurship research. . Small Bus. Manag. 5 ,
2 –50.
Lyons, T.S., Wyckoff, B., 201 . Facilitating community wealth building: understanding the roles played and capacities needed by coordinating institutions.
Community Dev. 5, – 5 .
Lyons, T.S., Alter, T.R., Audretsch, D., Augustine, D., 2012. Entrepreneurship and community: the next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrep. Res. . 2.
Mac as ázquez, A.M., Alonso González, P.A., 2015. Managing collective symbolic capital through agro-food labelling: strategies of local communities facing
neoliberalism in Spain. . Rural. Stud. 1, 1 2–152.
Mair, ., Seelos, C., 2021. Organizations, social problems, and system change: invigorating the third mandate of organizational research. Organ. Theory 2,
2 1 21105 5 .
Mair, ., Mart , I., entresca, M. ., 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how intermediaries work institutional voids. Acad. Manag. . 55, 1 – 50.
Mair, ., Wolf, M., Seelos, C., 201 . Scaffolding: a process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies. Acad. Manag. . 5 , 2021–20 .
Marconatto, D., Ladeira, W. ., Wegner, D., 201 . The sustainability of solidarity economy organizations: an empirical investigation. . Clean. Prod. 22 , 1122–11 0.
Markley, D.M., Lyons, T.S., Macke, D.W., 2015. Creating entrepreneurial communities: building community capacity for ecosystem development. Community Dev. ,
5 0–5 .
Markman, G.D., Waldron, T.L., Gianiodis, P.T., Espina, M.I., 201 . E pluribus unum: impact entrepreneurship as a solution to grand challenges. Acad. Manag.
Perspect. , 1– 2.
Marquis, C., Battilana, ., 200 . Acting globally but thinking locally The enduring in uence of local communities on organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 2 , 2 – 02.
Marquis, C., Lounsbury, M., 200 . ive la résistance: competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Acad. Manag. . 50, – 20.
Martens, M.L., ennings, .E., ennings, P.D., 200 . Do the stories they tell get them the money they need The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource
acquisition. Acad. Manag. . 50, 110 –11 2.
Marti, I., Courpasson, D., Dubard Barbosa, S., 201 . “Living in the fishbowl”. Generating an entrepreneurial culture in a local community in Argentina. . Bus. entur.
2 , 10–2 .
Matos, S., Hall, ., 2020. An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in impoverished communities: when institutional factors and individual characteristics result in non-
productive entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2, 1 –155.
Matthews, R.S., Chalmers, D.M., Fraser, S.S., 201 . The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: an interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research
agenda. . Bus. entur. , 1– 1 .
McDermott, G.A., Corredoira, R.A., Kruse, G., 200 . Public-private institutions as catalysts of upgrading in emerging market societies. Acad. Manag. . 52, 12 0–12 .
McFadgen, B.K., 201 . Connecting policy change, experimentation, and entrepreneurs: advancing conceptual and empirical insights. Ecol. Soc. 2 , art 0.
McInnis-Bowers, C., Parris, D.L., Galperin, B.L., 201 . Which came first, the chicken or the egg : exploring the relationship between entrepreneurship and resilience
among the Boruca Indians of Costa Rica. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 11, – 0.
McIntyre, A. 200 . Participatory Action Research. Sage Publications.
McKeever, E., ack, S., Anderson, A., 2015. Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re-construction of place. . Bus. entur. 0, 50– 5.
McMullen, .S., Bergman, B. ., 201 . Social entrepreneurship and the development paradox of prosocial motivation: a cautionary tale. Strateg. Entrep. . 11, 2 –2 0.
McMullen, .S., Dimov, D., 201 . Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. . Manag. Stud. 50,
1 1–1512.
McMullen, .S., Warnick, B. ., 201 . Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid organization . Manag. Stud. 5 , 0– 2.
McNamara, P., Pazzaglia, F., Sonpar, K., 201 . Large-scale events as catalysts for creating mutual dependence between social ventures and resource providers.
. Manag. , 0–500.
Meyer, C., 2020. The commons: a model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities. . Bus. entur. 5, 10 0 .
Mitzinneck, B.C., Besharov, M.L., 201 . Managing value tensions in collective social entrepreneurship: the role of temporal, structural, and collaborative compromise.
. Bus. Ethics 15 , 1– 00.
Molina-Maturano, ., Bucher, ., Speelman, S., 2020. Understanding and evaluating the sustainability of frugal water innovations in México: An exploratory case
study. . Clean. Prod. 2 , 122 2.
Molecke, G., Pinkse, ., 2020. ustifying social impact as a form of impression management: legitimacy judgements of social enterprises’ impact accounts. British .
Manag. 1, – 02.
Montgomery, A.W., Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., 2012. Collective social entrepreneurship: collaboratively shaping social good. . Bus. Ethics 111, 5– .
Moroz, P.W., Hindle, K., 2012. Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrep. Theory Pract. , 1– 1 .
Moskwa, E., Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Gifford, S., 2015. Sustainability through food and conversation: the role of an entrepreneurial restaurateur in fostering
engagement with sustainable development issues. . Sust. Tourism 2 , 12 –1 5.
Mrabure, R.O., 201 . Indigenous business success: a hybrid perspective. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 1 , 2 – 1.
Mrkajic, B., Murtinu, S., Scalera, .G., 201 . Is green the new gold enture capital and green entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 52, 2 – 50.
Muñoz, P., Dimov, D., 2015. The call of the whole in understanding the development of sustainable ventures. . Bus. entur. 0, 2– 5 .
Muñoz, S.-A., Steiner, A., Farmer, ., 2015. Processes of community-led social enterprise development: learning from the rural context. Community Dev. . 50,
– .
Murphy, M., Danis, W.M., Mack, ., Sayers, (Kekinusuqs) udith, 2020. From principles to action: community-based entrepreneurship in the Toquaht Nation. . Bus.
entur. 5, 10 051.
Nwankwo, E., Phillips, N., Tracey, P., 200 . Social investment through community enterprise: the case of multinational corporations involvement in the development
of Nigerian water resources. . Bus. Ethics , 1–101.
O’Brien, E.M., Cooney, T., Blenker, P., 201 . Expanding university entrepreneurial ecosystems to under-represented communities. . Entrep. Public Policy , – 0 .
Olabisi, ., Kwesiga, E., uma, N., Tang, ., 201 . Stakeholder transformation process: the journey of an indigenous community. . Bus. Ethics 15 , 1–21.
O’Mahony, S., Lakhani, K.R., 2011. Organizations in the Shadow of Communities. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ostrom, E., 1 0. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom, E., 2010. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 1– 2.
Pacheco, D.F., ork, .G., Hargrave, T. ., 201 . The coevolution of industries, social movements, and institutions: wind power in the United States. Organ. Sci. 25,
1 0 –1 2.
Pathak, S., 201 . Recommendations for under-represented entrepreneurship. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 1 , 1 –1 .
Peredo, A.M., 200 . Emerging strategies against poverty. . Manag. Inq. 12, 155–1 .
Peredo, A.M., Chrisman, . ., 200 . Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1, 0 – 2 .
Peters, D. ., Hamideh, S., arecor, K.E., Ghandour, M., 201 . Using entrepreneurial social infrastructure to understand smart shrinkage in small towns. . Rural. Stud.
, – .
Pinto, L.E., Blue, L.E., 201 . Aboriginal entrepreneurship financing in Canada. . Entrep. Emerg. Econ. , 2–20.
Plummer, L.A., Pe’er, A., 2010. The geography of entrepreneurship. In: Acs, ., Audretsch, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Springer, New ork,
New ork, N , pp. 51 –55 .
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., Prescott, .E., 2020. Advancing theory with review articles. . Manag. Stud. 5 , 51– .
Powell, E.E., Hamann, R., Bitzer, ., Baker, T., 201 . Bringing the elephant into the room Enacting con ict in collective prosocial organizing. . Bus. entur. ,
2 – 2.
S Bac et al
Powell, G.N., Eddleston, K.A., 201 . Linking family-to-business enrichment and support to entrepreneurial success: do female and male entrepreneurs experience
different outcomes . Bus. entur. 2 , 2 1–2 0.
Pret, T., Carter, S., 201 . The importance of fitting in’: collaboration and social value creation in response to community norms and expectations. Entrep. Reg. Dev.
2 , – .
Pueyo, A., Carreras, M., Ngoo, G., 2020. Exploring the linkages between energy, gender, and enterprise: evidence from Tanzania. World Dev. 12 , 10 0.
Quist, L.M., Nygren, A., 2015. Contested claims over space and identity between fishers and the oil industry in Mexico. Geoforum , –5 .
Rao, H., Greve, H.R., 201 . Disasters and community resilience: Spanish u and the formation of retail cooperatives in Norway. Acad. Manag. . 1, 5–25.
Rao, H., Morrill, C., ald, M.N., 2000. Power plays: how social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Res. Organ. Behav. 22, 2 –2 1.
Rao, H., Qingyuan ue, L., Ingram, P., 2010. Activists, categories, and markets: Racial diversity and protests against Walmart store openings in America. In: Hsu, G.,
Negro, G., Ko ak, Ö. (Eds.), Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 2 5–25 .
Ratten, ., Dana, L.P., 2015. Indigenous food entrepreneurship in Australia: Mark Olive “Australia’s amie Oliver” and Indigiearth. Int. . Entrep. Small Bus. 2 , 2 5.
Ratten, ., Welpe, I.M., 2011. Special issue: community-based, social and societal entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 2 –2 .
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., Newbert, S.L., 201 . Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research.
Entrep. Theory Pract. , 2–115.
Reficco, E., Márquez, P., 2012. Inclusive networks for building BOP markets. Bus. Soc. 51, 512–55 .
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., Kolk, A., 2015. Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Academy of Management Perspectives. Academy of
Management, pp. 2– 1.
Roche, C. ., 1 . Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to alue Change. Oxfam, Oxford.
Roundy, P.T., Bayer, M.A., 201 . To bridge or buffer A resource dependence theory of nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems. . Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 11, 550–5 5.
Ruebottom, T., 201 . The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship: building legitimacy through heroes and villains. . Bus. entur. 2 ,
–11 .
Ruebottom, T., Auster, E.R., 201 . Re exive dis/embedding: personal narratives, empowerment and the emotional dynamics of interstitial events. Organ. Stud. ,
– 0.
Ryan, A., Branzei, O., Geiger, S., Haugh, H., 2020. Putting partnerships in their place: Moral and material processes of place-based respect, repair, and renewal. . Bus.
Ethic Call for Papers.
Saldarriaga-Isaza, A., Arango, S., illegas-Palacio, C., 2015. A behavioral model of collective action in artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Ecol. Econ. 112, –10 .
Salvato, C., Sargiacomo, M., Amore, M.D., Minichilli, A., 2020. Natural disasters as a source of entrepreneurial opportunity: family business resilience after an
earthquake. Strateg. Entrep. . 1 , 5 – 15.
Sarason, ., Dean, T., Dillard, .F., 200 . Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: a structuration view. . Bus. entur. 21, 2 – 05.
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., unibola, S., Steven, H., Meo-Sewabu, L., 2020. Business serves society: successful locally-driven development on customary land in the
South Pacific. Geoforum 112, 52– 2.
Schneiberg, M., 2002. Organizational heterogeneity and the production of new forms: politics, social movements and mutual companies in American fire insurance,
1 00–1 0. In: Lounsbury, M., entresca, M. . (Eds.), Social Structure and Organizations Revisited. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. – .
Sen, A., 1 . Commodities and Capabilities. OUP Catalogue.
Shane, S., enkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25, 21 –22 .
Shaw, .D., Tangirala, S., issa, B., Rodell, .B., 201 . New ways of seeing: theory integration across disciplines. Acad. Manag. . 1, 1– .
Shepherd, D.A., 2015. Party On A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. . Bus.
entur. 0, –50 .
Shepherd, D.A., Patzelt, H., 201 . Trailblazing in entrepreneurship: creating new paths for understanding the field.
Shepherd, D.A., Sattari, R., Patzelt, H., 2020. A social model of opportunity development: Building and engaging communities of inquiry. . Bus. entur., 10 0
Sine, W.D., Lee, B.H., 200 . Tilting at windmills The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Adm. Sci. Q. 5 , 12 –155.
Siqueira, A.C.O., Honig, B., Mariano, S., Moraes, ., 2020. A commons strategy for promoting entrepreneurship and social capital: implications for community
currencies, cryptocurrencies, and value exchange. . Bus. Ethics 1 , 11– 2 .
Slade Shantz, A., Kistruck, G., ietsma, C., 201 . The opportunity not taken: the occupational identity of entrepreneurs in contexts of poverty. . Bus. entur. ,
1 – .
Smith, A., 1 . The wealth of nations.
Smith, R., McElwee, G., Somerville, P., 201 . Illegal diversification strategies in the farming community from a UK perspective. . Rural. Stud. 5 , 122–1 1.
Somerville, P., McElwee, G., 2011. Situating community enterprise: a theoretical exploration. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 1 – 0.
Sonnino, R., Griggs-Trevarthen, C., 201 . A resilient social economy Insights from the community food sector in the UK. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 25, 2 2–2 2.
Spencer, R., Brueckner, M., Wise, G., Marika, B., 201 . Australian indigenous social enterprise: measuring performance. . Enterprising Communities People Places
Glob. Econ. 10, – 2 .
Steiner, A., Atterton, ., 2015. Exploring the contribution of rural enterprises to local resilience. . Rural. Stud. 0, 0– 5.
Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., Mair, ., 201 . Organizations driving positive social change. . Manag. 2, 1250–12 1.
Stoll, .S., Dubik, B.A., Campbell, L.M., 2015. Local seafood: rethinking the direct marketing paradigm. Ecol. Soc. 20, art 0.
Subramony, M., 201 . Service organizations and their communities: perspectives and new directions for management research. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1, 2 – .
Sun, S.L., Im, ., 2015. Cutting microfinance interest rates: an opportunity co-creation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. , 101–12 .
Süsser, D., Döring, M., Ratter, B.M., 201 . Harvesting energy: place and local entrepreneurship in community-based renewable energy transition. Energy Policy 101,
2– 1.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G.D., Chen, ., 201 . Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: a review and future research directions. . Bus. entur. , 1 –21 .
Swanson, L.A., Bruni-Bossio, ., 201 . A righteous undocumented economy. . Bus. Ethics 1 0, 225–2 .
Tapsell, P., Woods, C., 2010. Social entrepreneurship and innovation: self-organization in an indigenous context. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 22, 5 5–55 .
Tello-Rozas, S., Pozzebon, M., Mailhot, C., 2015. Uncovering micro-practices and pathways of engagement that scale up social-driven collaborations: a practice view
of power. . Manag. Stud. 52, 10 –10 .
Thomas, A.S., Mueller, S.L., 2000. A case for comparative entrepreneurship: assessing the relevance of culture. . Int. Bus. Stud. 1, 2 – 01.
Tiwari, P., Bhat, A.K., Tikoria, ., 2022. Mediating role of prosocial motivation in predicting social entrepreneurial intentions. . Soc. Entrep. 1 (1), 11 –1 1.
Tobias, .M., Mair, ., Barbosa-Leiker, C., 201 . Toward a theory of transformative entrepreneuring: poverty reduction and con ict resolution in Rwanda’s
entrepreneurial coffee sector. . Bus. entur. 2 , 2 – 2.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 200 . Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. .
Manag. 1 , 20 –222.
Uduji, .I., Okolo-Obasi, E.N., Asongu, S., 2020. Women’s participation in the offshore and inshore fisheries entrepreneurship: the role of CSR in Nigeria’s oil coastal
communities. . Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 1 , 2 –2 5.
alchovska, S., Watts, G., 201 . Interpreting community-based enterprise: a case study from rural Wales. . Soc. Entrep. , 211–2 5.
edula, S., Doblinger, C., Pacheco, D., ork, ., Bacq, S., Russo, M., Dean, T., 2022. Entrepreneurship for the public good: a review, critique, and path forward for
social and environmental entrepreneurship research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1 , 1– 25.
ega, D.E., Keenan, R. ., 201 . Situating community forestry enterprises within New Institutional Economic theory: what are the implications for their organization
. For. Econ. 25, 1–1 .
enkataraman, H., ermeulen, P., Raaijmakers, A., Mair, ., 201 . Market meets community: institutional logics as strategic resources for development work. Organ.
Stud. , 0 – .
S Bac et al
enkataraman, S., 1 . The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective. In: Katz, ., Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. AI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 11 –1 .
enkatesh, ., Shaw, .D., Sykes, T.A., Wamba, S.F., Macharia, M., 201 . Networks, technology, and entrepreneurship: a field quasi-experiment among women in
rural India. Acad. Manag. . 0, 1 0 –1 0.
estrum, I., 201 . The embedding process of community ventures: creating a music festival in a rural community. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2 , 1 – .
estrum, I., 201 . Integrating multiple theoretical approaches to explore the resource mobilization process of community ventures. . Enterprising Communities
People Places Glob. Econ. 10, 12 –1 .
estrum, I., Rasmussen, E., 201 . How community ventures mobilise resources: developing resource dependence and embeddedness. Int. . Entrep. Behav. Res. 1 ,
2 – 02.
estrum, I., Rasmussen, E., Carter, S., 201 . How nascent community enterprises build legitimacy in internal and external environments. Reg. Stud. 51, 1 21–1 .
Wearing, S., McDonald, M., Schweinsberg, S., Chatterton, P., Bainbridge, T., 2020. Exploring tripartite praxis for the REDD + forest climate change initiative through
community based ecotourism. . Sustain. Tour. 2 , – .
Weber, K., Heinze, K.L., Desoucey, M., 200 . Forage for thought: mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Adm. Sci. Q. 5 , 52 –5 .
Welter, F., 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship-conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrep. Theory Pract. 5, 1 5–1 .
Welter, F., Baker, T., 2021. Moving contexts onto new roads: clues from other disciplines. Entrep. Theory Pract. 5 (5), 115 –11 5.
Wenger, E.C., Snyder, W.M., 2000. Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harv. Bus. Rev. , 1 –1 .
Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, .P., Prescott, .E., Prencipe, A., 2021. Management research that makes a difference: broadening the meaning of impact. . Manag. Stud.
5 , 2 – 20.
Wigren-Kristofersen, C., Korsgaard, S., Brundin, E., Hellerstedt, K., Agnete Alsos, G., Grande, ., 201 . Entrepreneurship and embeddedness: dynamic, processual and
multi-layered perspectives. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 1, 1011–1015.
Williams, T.A., Shepherd, D.A., 201 a. ictim entrepreneurs doing well by doing good: venture creation and well-being in the aftermath of a resource shock. . Bus.
entur. 1, 5– .
Williams, T.A., Shepherd, D.A., 201 b. Building resilience or providing sustenance: different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.
Acad. Manag. . 5 , 20 –2102.
in, D., Qian, ., hu, H., 201 . Frontier development in the midst of ecological civilization: unravelling the production of maca in unnan, China. Geoforum 10 ,
1 –15 .
ork, .G., Hargrave, T. ., Pacheco, D.F., 201 . Converging winds: logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Acad. Manag. . 5 , 5 – 10.
ork, .G., edula, S., Lenox, M. ., 201 . It’s not easy building green: the impact of public policy, private actors, and regional logics on voluntary standards adoption.
Acad. Manag. . 1, 1 2–152 .
ahra, S.A., Wright, M., 201 . Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. . Manag. Stud. 5 , 10– 2 .

Communities at The Nexus of Entrepreneurship and Societal Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communities at The Nexus of Entrepreneurship and Societal Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ournal of Business enturing

Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal

“ he community is the garden of entrepreneurship o entrepreneurial venture can o er in isolation ”

2. Defining and linking our key concepts

1 vervie of the ndings

ig. 1. Community types and overlapping combinations.

3 comprehensive frame or of community roles

3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation in communities— ommunities as conte t

3 Entrepreneurship and societal impact creation driven y communities— ommunities as entrepreneurs

Murphy et al., 2020).

. apping community types and roles community as a dynamic concept

Key actors: entrepreneurs, community, and possibly other actors

Key actors: entrepreneurs, community, and possibly other actors

Key actors: (1) community; (2) entrepreneurs

Key actors: community = entrepreneur

ig. 3. A joined view of community types and community roles.

. dvancing research on entrepreneurship community and societal impact

1 ross disciplinary learnings a out community research

Implications for future research in entrepreneurship

gency Study communities as context that move to

Community as a collective entrepreneur Social entrepreneurial

gency Illuminate the relationship between

1 Implications for research on the entrepreneurial process

Implications for research on social entrepreneurship

3 Implications for BE research

Implications for research on ethnic and minority entrepreneurship

3 Implications for research on societal impact creation and measurement

Redi authorship contri ution statement

ppendix . earch procedure

.1. ournal list

anagement and Entrepreneurship 122 Economic eography and Regional cience

• Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) ournals

.2.2. Inclusion criteria

.2.3. Exclusion criteria

• only brie y mentioned community without going into detail;

1. type(s) of community (place, identity, interest, practice, fate);

Community roles Beneficiary Context Supporter Partner Opportunity creator Entrepreneur

Community type combinations

Community type combinations

Identity, interest 1 0.5 1 0. 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Beneficiary 110 . 5 .5 2 50. 1. 2 1

ppendix . upplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.101 /j.jbusvent.2022.10 2 1.

You might also like